Huh? 7 hours per CD is just 21 hours to download Red Hat
Like I said, I'd rather run down to the store and buy the CD and have it in half an hour than wait a day. Unfortunately there was a problem 1 hour short of my third download so I am now downloading the third ISO again. So it's going to be about 1 day and 5 hours to download it.
and since it's DSL you're not tying up a phone line. You can use your computer for other things while it's downloading
I can, but I can't start my install until it's fully downloaded. Which means I might get to it this evening rather than yesterday in the morning.
That is nothing! I'd *much* rather do that than pay $50.
Apparently you are cheap and your time is worth nothing.:) I'd rather have paid $50 yesterday and have been using my new installation since yesterday. As it stands, I'm still downloading.
Just out of curiosity, what does DSL run in Mexico?
256k DSL (256 down, 128 up) costs US$60/month. They have 512 and 1024 options, too, but the prices go up really quickly. Interestingly, the price goes up FASTER than the throughput which makes no sense. Welcome to Mexico.
I can't think of a better way to annoy a customer than to sell them something that they later find they could have downloaded or legally copied for free.
Are you kidding? I'm in Mexico right now and there aren't any "on the shelf" copies of RedHat anywhere near here, so I'm downloading RedHat9 as I write this via my 256k DSL. It's going to take about 7 hours per CD. I would definitely pay $50 (or whatever) if I could walk down to the local store and pick up a boxed set even if I know I can download it for free.
The point isn't that it's not available in Mexico. The point is that if they're going to abandon the boxed set that means people in the U.S. are going to be in the same situation I'm in now. And it sucks. Downloading 2GB of ISOs is a big deterrent for someone that is kind of thinking about switching OSs. Even having to figure out what to do with the ISOs is going to be a challenge for many of them.
I agree with someone else in this thread--it's probably not a good idea. Having your product out on the shelf gets you known and in front of consumers. They may not buy today, but they may buy (or download) in the future. Having RedHat disappear from the shelves could very easily mean, "Oh, where's RedHat? I guess it folded. Oh well" to the average consuemr that might just be starting to hear something about Linux and/or RedHat.
Urban legend? Please get a clue, man.You are over off by a factor of 400. "ASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion"
You quote CNN quoting President Clinton. My entire point is that the whole claim that there was a budget surplus is either fancy accounting or outright lies. You quoting CNN quoting President Clinton does not prove your case--I don't deny Clinton said it. He did. What I reject is that he spoke the truth.
Check out the U.S. Treasury yourself where you can see the U.S. debt on a day-day-day basis, or at the end of each fiscal year. Tell me where you see the national debt being reduced by $223 billion in any year of the Clinton administration. You won't. It didn't happen. The debt hasn't been reduced since 1960. THAT IS THE FACT. You are trying to defend a lie from the Clinton administration. I highly suggest you educate yourself as to the truth before committing yourself to a position that is wrong and will just make you look uninformed.
Now, after you click the above link and do your homework come back and let me know what year of the Clinton administration you see the debt go down. Don't base your answer on what Clinton said--base your answer on facts. As you know, politicians often bend them and Clinton was the master bender. But the numbers from the U.S. Treasury don't lie.
There has been no surplus since 1960. The numbers from the U.S. Treasury prove that. Anyone that tells you different is not being honest or is uninformed.
I don't complain about not winning the lottery if I don't actually put a freaking ticket in.
Yeah, but companies in the U.S. are prohibited from operating lotteries. That's why you always have the option of sending in a "ballot" by email "no purchase necessary." Just as now purchase is necessary I doubt MSN Messenger is required--but if you don't have MSN Messenger you might have to resort to snail mailing in your opportunity to win.
Ok, whatever. If Bush ordered the same thing done today to those from Iraq, Saudia Arabia, and Afghanistan he'd be crucified as a racist, a Muslim-hater, or whatever. The point being there have been much more severe deprivations of civil liberty that someone else here has accused the administration of under the Patriot Act.
Before the Patriot Act, there was ONE (1) such violation of civil liberties in the 225 year history of the United States. His name was Kevin Mitnick.
I guess we're just ignoring the thousands of Japanese Americans during WWII, right? That was a far more extensive violation of civil liberties based on pure racism.
Some have been released after months of psychological torture (and in some cases, physical torture)
Please post references, especially to those about physical torture.
and don't see how that could be a problem?
It is a problem and I think the Patriot Act should go away. What I disagree with is the claim that we no longer have civil rights and that average Americans are at risk. Is the Patriot Act a bad thing? Yes. Am I worried that I'm going to be pulled over by a police, accused of being a terrorist, and thrown in jail forever? No, I'm not.
Last year, Bush said that the Patriot Act gives him the right to order any American citizen be arrested and jailed forever without charge.
Reference? Link? Did he say that, or is that your interpretation and spin on what he said?
Shortly afterwards, he said that his Constitutional role as Commander in Chief of the armed forces gives him the right to order any American citizen be executed whether on foreign or U.S. soil.
Reference? Link? Did he say that, or is that your interpretation and spin on what he said?
It is people like you who do nothing and even gloat about it that are causing the downfall of our country faster than Osama could have ever dreamed.
It is extremists that misrepresent the views of others that give liberals and Democrats a bad name. Please provide me with the links I asked for above, then we'll talk.
I am so sick and tired of Repulicans trying to lay the blame for the economy on the Democrats.
It's a natural reaction to the Democrats trying to pin it on the Republicans.
Who is responsible for the national debt counter being turned on?
We've had a debt since 1791. As the same source shows, Clinton increased the debt 1.610 trillion, to Reagan's increase of $1.672 trillion--a whopping $62 billion difference. And considering Reagan received an economy in recession, decreased taxes, and defeated the Soviet Union it is amazing he only spent $62 billion more than Clinton who received a growing economy, increased taxes, and didn't really do anything in his 8 years.
Who spend over 500 billion dollars in their first 3 months of office?
Hmm, well, considering the budget in place 3 months into Bush's presidency was Clinton's last budget that is actually a very good question.
Who is in control of the senate and congress?
Republicans now. Your point?
Who is starting wars just to boost their popularity rating not even caring that we could not afford it?
Do you really believe that? Bush's father didn't win his next election starting a war. Bush's current popularity is back to where it was pre-9/11. I don't see any significant increase in his popularity because of this war and if Democrats succeed at their current publicity campaign, they might actually convince the electorate that Bush lied about it and it might actually HURT him.
I don't think you are really paying attention to current events.
Who is resposible for the fact that you now PERSONALLY owe the federal government $72,000?
$72k? How do you figure? The debt (as of last night) was $6,722,160,964,748.21 and if we assume 280 million citizens that's $24k each, not $72k. I assume you are dividing by the number of taxpayers, but that's not really accurate since anyone can make money and most of the children eventually will. So dividing by the current number of taxpayers isn't very useful since it's not necessarily the current taxpayers that will pay it all.
But to answer your question:
1791-1980: $930 billion Reagan: $1.672 trillion. Started with a bad economy, cut taxes, and defeated Soviet Union. Bush Sr: $1.462 trillion. Started with a good economy, increased taxes, got stuck in a 9-month recession, fought war with Iraq. Clinton: $1.610 trillion. Received a growing economy, increased taxes, didn't do much else. GWB: $1.05 trillion to-date. Reecived an economy falling into recession, 9/11 happened, slow recovery, war in Afghanistan and war in Iraq.
So there you have it. Who created the debt? Clinton is second-only to Reagan. What's really amazing is that with a growing economy, no costly war, and a tax INCREASE he almost beat Reagan in terms of total deficit spending! And somehow he gets away with supposedly balancing the budget. Hello, McFly??
It is the current administrations fault and their fault alone
See above. You are very far from being right. Yes, there has been deficit spending in the last 2 years. But don't pretend that all our woes have been created by Bush in the last two years. If that's your position it's not even worth discussing it with you as you are clearly out of touch with reality.
Now you get back to work, because you probably wont have a job in 2 years.
I'm self-employed, I'm happy to say. Unless I fire myself I'll be fine.
I knew that comment would provoke this kind of response, but I figured I'd go ahead with it anyway.
The "problem" with the Patriot Act is that, supposedly, it lets the government just accuse you of being a terrorist and then hold you indefinitely. While I won't deny that there have been violations of civil liberties, I haven't seen anything that convinces me that there are any more violations than there were before. They may be more publicized now, but people have their civil rights violated on a daily basis.
When the Bush administration starts pulling people over on traffic stops and accuses them of being a terrorist because they were speeding and throws them in jail indefinitely, we have a problem. But so far I really haven't seen the Patriot Act abused in that way.
In fact, I used one... ONCE. We were still parked at the gate and I didn't have a cell phone and I made a quick 30-second call to let 'em know I had made the earlier flight so they should leave for the airport NOW.
Of course, had I had a cell phone it wouldn't have been an issue since we were still at the gate.
I thought there was talk of discontinuing them on several airlines as well.
Every American Airlines flight I've been on this year has a little sticker on the phone that says "Service discontinued effective March 31, 2002." I assume that means the phone in the seat no longer works. I've wondered why they discontinued the service. Not profitable? Security? Company offering the phone service went out of business?
Yep. Have yours been infringed lately? Mine haven't.
Remember budget surpluses?
Not since 1960 when the debt went down by $500 million. Despite urban legend, there was no budget surplus under the Clinton administration. Or if there was I'd like someone to explain where it was spent, because it certainly didn't reduce the debt--which means it wasn't really a surplus.
Remember an economy that was working?
The one that Clinton nuked and then handed off to Bush as he left office?
Remember employment?
Business cycles suck, don't they? This wasn't the first recession and it won't be the last.
Same here. I honestly don't remember what the topic was now, but I sent an email to my Congressional representative regarding some topic I had read about here. I received an automated email reply and figured that would be it.
A week or two later I got a physical letter in the mail that addressed what I had mentioned in my email. I can't say how personalized it was--perhaps he just had a generic response prepared for anyone that wrote about that particular topic. But just getting a response from him at all was more than I expected.
"The White House no longer promises to read anything you send to president@whitehouse.gov"
You think that this or the previous administration read all the email that it got? At best they had a bank of secretaries reading and responding to it. That's arguably the same as not reading it.
When a government doesn't have time to listen to the people it's supposed to govern, you know that it's grown too large.
While I agree that a government should listen to its people, that is largely done at the ballot box. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that in a country of nearly 300 million people where it takes just a few seconds fir anyone to rocket off an email to anyone--including the president--that the president or even the staff is going to be able to reply or even read every submission.
I'm quite right. It is set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26 ("sue or be sued"), an equal opportunity monstrosity.
I Googled it and read a number of pages. It looks to me like it explains the civil procedure, but I didn't find any reference that says a single plaintiff can indiscriminantly sue a "class" of defendents. Can you give me an exact paragraph citation where I can find that? It just seems that if that were the case that we'd see more lawsuits of that type, and I've never heard of one.
Of course, DirecTV goes after people individually. The problem is that they do so indiscriminantly. I'm not seeing where that is defined, encouraged, or protected by rule 26.
Likewise, I can't preserve your right to petition government and at the same time complain about not being able to limit lawsuits I don't like.
Petitioning the government and limiting frivolous lawsuits against non-government organizations and individuals are two entirely different topics.
Job creation always lags after the beginning of a recovery. Companies have to see the recovery has legs before they start to commit to hiring people. This is nothing new.
Why did we go from a $200B surplus in 2000 to a record $475B deficit this year?
Oh, please. There was never a $200B surplus. The debt increased by $20 billion even in 2000 and grew by $1.6 trillion under Clinton. What you heard about a balanced budget was smoke and mirrors--there was never a surplus as shown by the above U.S. debt web page that shows that the deficit never went down in any year of the Clinton administration.
As for the deficit, that always happens during a recession and the beginning of the subsequent
recovery. Until companies are convinced the recovery has legs there are still people that are jobless which are drawing unemployment while not paying taxes on income. Plus we had military action in the wake of 9/11.
In the U.S., large corporations are sued by a kazillion plaintiffs in a single suit, often allegeing that entire classes of people suffered an identical injury. Such class actions are not considered inherently evil, though many class members may not be entitled to relief at all.
Yes, but in those cases many plaintiffs joint together in a class action suit against a single company accusing it of a single bad behavior that effected all of them. You can't reverse it and say, therefore, a corporation has the right to sue en masse many individuals they accuse of similar "crimes." I.e., the class action suit is based on the assumption that the bad behavior of a corporation affected many plaintiffs--the corporation is singularly accused of the crime, but there are many plaintiffs. In this case, there is a single plaintiff and they are accusing many people of a crime. Not the same thing.
Even so, in a class action lawsuit I believe that once the corporation is found guilty and monetary damages are established, relief is granted to each plaintiff on a case by case basis and that is when the plaintiff may get little or nothing if they have no claim to relief. But that happens once the corporation has been found guilty of the accusation. Here, DirecTV is demanding $3500 without even determining in court whether you are guilty.
There exist procedural grounds, often quite difficult to overcome, by which a single plaintiff can sue a kazillion defendants as a class. Neither procedural vehicle requires as a precondition that all the individual cases are resolved and determined before the suits are filed.
Can you cite that? I'm not saying you're wrong, I've just never heard of anything like that. And it seems wrong. If this is the case, why doesn't the RIAA use this tactic?
That these are handled in the present case as a kazillion suits instead of one doesn't change the analysis or make inherently wrong any of these efforts to remedy what some people consider to be a civil wrong.
I would say that sending threatening letters and demanding payment of $3500 or the risk of prosecution in federal court to people that may OR MAY NOT be huilty is inherently wrong, is extortion, and should be illegal. It's a big company bullying individuals. If they have evidence of guilt, sue that person. But DirecTV is going on a fishing expedition.
Being wrong within an allegation doesn't make it objectively baseless, that is a sham.
It does make it objectiveley baseless and a sham if the allegation is made without any due diligence in determining whether the allegation is correct. If I broke the law, sue me. But to assume that I broke the law because I purchased something that can be used to break the law is a fishing expedition.
We are a nation grounded in the right to petition, which includes that right to sue -- so long as the SOLE reason isn't to harm people -- even if the principal and guiding reason is to do so.
How can you actually believe that? I agree that we have the right to sue people that harm us. But I don't think it is written anywhere that we have the right to sue anyone that we think may have harmed us or could have harmed us had they wanted to without having some significant evidence that suggests someone actually DID harm us.
The problem here is that DirecTV is taking the purchase of devices that have legal uses as "evidence" of harm. That's BS because they can't prove what the device was used for. As it has been said, a cable descrambler has only one use and its illegal. These ISO smartcard programmers DO have legal uses so to use the purchase of said device as evidence of intent to steal DirecTV's signal is absurd. They should need to provide something more substantial in the way of evidence before being allowed to bully consumers and launch frivolous lawsuits... and they frivolous not in that the crime they allege is unimportant, it's frivolous because they don't have sufficient evidence to prov
I agree. And he tried to take advantage of it, but to his peril. He kept saying that the economy was improving but Clinton just kept convincing everyone how bad the economy was and tried to show that Bush Sr. was out of touch with reality. He wasn't, of course, but Clinton succcessfully got into office by convincing the electorate that the economy was in bad shape. Then when he got there he claimed credit for presiding over a recovery that started under Bush Sr.'s administration.
I agree. If I were asked to pay a reconnect fee I'd tell them "Thanks, been nice doing business with you, I've gotta make a call to my local cable TV company."
I'm so sick of big businesses making up for their technical or business insufficiencies through legislation and lawsuits. At the very least RIAA goes after endusers that they (apparently) have evidence have been sharing files. But for DirecTV to go after everyone that ever purchased a certain type of hardware is essentially like the RIAA sending a nastygram to everyone that bought a computer and has broadband. Sure, you'll probably catch some bad guys but your selection criteria is so broad as to be abusive.
It's almost like the cops putting up a roadblock on the freeway and issuing a speeding violation to 6 out of every 10 people because, on average, 60% of people speed. It should be just as illegal for DirecTV to use that method as it is for police.
It seems that doing lawsuits en masse, by definition, are objectively baseless. If they analyze each case and make an objective decision then I wouldn't see it is barratry. But if they just get a mailing list of people that have bought these things and fire off these threats indiscriminantly then they ARE going to be wrong sometimes and they are objectively baseless in the sense that they didn't even make a reasonable effort to determine if an individual accusation is baseless.
I am somewhat worried about this whole affair because I did purchase one of these devices. Some years ago a visitor to my website that deals with microcontrollers wrote me asking about how to write microcontroller programs for smartcards. I didn't even know, until then, that smartcards HAD microcontrollers. So I immediately became excited at the possible applications and went out and bought one of these devices since I was going to play with the technology and, perhaps, come up with new products. Or at the very least expand my own microcontroller knowledge.
Now it turns out that DirecTV is threatening anyone that purchased one of these devices. I don't doubt that many or even most people that purchase(d) them do so for less than legitimate uses, but there ARE those of us who have legitimate uses for them. The problem is that the article seems to suggest that DirecTV isn't interested in talking about it. They just ask you to pony up $3500. Otherwise they sue you for $10k plus fees. That's absurd.
I haven't received one of these letters, but if I do then I'm definitely going to have to talk to my lawyer about what to do. It's bogus because $3500 is certainly going to be less than to defend my legal use of the device. At that point, it's extortion. DirecTV offers a settlement at a price point they know is less than what it will cost anyone to defend themselves so even innocent people just decide to cave and send them a check for $3500. But that's so much BS being in a position to have to pay DirecTV $3500 because if they sue you it's going to cost more.
I don't have DirecTV, Dish, or cable. I don't even live in the U.S. right now. But if/when I move back to the U.S. I can guarantee you I WON'T be subscribing to DirecTV regardless of whether or not I ever receive one of these letters.
Business spending, though, still isn't really recovering, unemployment is up, and deflation is a looming possibility, so this economy could still plop on its ass again.
So now you want to blame Bush for what "might happen" even though it hasn't happened yet? Yeah, the economy could still go plop. If/when it happens we'll talk about that.
Incidentally, I hope I don't have to remind you that the largest peacetime economic expansion in history also occurred under Clinton's policies
Nope, don't have to remind me. I heard it enough during the last few years of the Clinton administration and during the 2000 campaign.
However, the second largest expansion was during the Reagan administration. The "Clinton" expansion was 100 months while the Reagan expansion was 92 months. There was only a 9-month recession in between the two (coincidentally when Bush Sr. decided to raise taxes)... So it could quite easily be argued that the "Clinton" expansion was simply an extension of the Reagan expansion that was interrupted by tax hikes. And even if you want to consider them two separate expansions, the Clinton expansion definitely exceeded the Reagan expansion due exclusively to the tech bubble at the end of the 90's. If it weren't for that artificial bump it is doubtful the Clinton expansion would have been able to claim that title in the first place and would still be second to the Reagan expansion of the 80's.
coupled with the fact that no period of prosperity can last forever, are the prime contributors to the current recession.
I would agree with that.
The fact that two huge tax cuts still haven't really gotten it back on its feet indicate to me that Voodoo Economics still doesn't work.
Well that indicates to me that the business and economic cycles are just plain strong, and a relatively small tax cut isn't sufficient to overcome those natural cycles in economics. But leaving money in the hands of those who make it--both rich and poor--is always a good idea.
Clinton left as the economy was diving into recession under his policies and budgets. It was Clinton policy and budget that was in effect when the recession started in March 2001. The economy has been recovering ever since November 2001--a month after the first Bush budget took effect.
Feel free to believe what you want and twist the facts as you want, but the reality is that this economy was damaged more than anything by unreal expectations during the technology bubble. But if you want to go into radical political mode you have to understand the facts: 1) The economy entered a recession under Clinton's policy and budget. 2) The economy began to recover (albeit slowly) a month after Bush's first federal budget took effect.
Bingo! Critics are a joke, be it book critics, movie critics, music critics. I assume they must be people that think highly of themselves--or, as they say "Those that can't do, teach... or criticize."
All I know is critics very seldom get it right. I can't tell you how many "4-star" movies we've gone to that were "critically acclaimed" and maybe even won awards that had us yawning 5 minutes into the movie. I've gone so far as to suggest that on a 4-star scale if you want to know the real worth of a movie take the score given by the critics and subtract it from 4. That'll give you an idea of its entertainment value.
I figure the critics are some elitist jerks and they most criticize (or praise) works to score points in some weird cultural group that actually cares what they think--or that they think care what they think.
I just know I've gone to 5 too many movies that were "critically acclaimed" and had be downright bored in 5 minutes and left me with nothing. I'm not saying that I need shoot-em-up-action to keep my interest and I've seen some good movies that leave you with something. But, interestingly, these aren't the movies that usually are highly acclaimed. It's the stupid, what-did-you-smoke-before-you-filmed-this-movie type of movies that somehow get praised by critics that are apparently out of touch with what the rest of the world is interested in seeing.
Anyway, enough ranting. But you stumbled on something that really has struck me as silly as years. Why does any idiot critic think he is "qualified" to judge what I will like or what I should like?
Want to know the best way to decide whether to watch a movie or listen to music? Wait a week and read VIEWER response. Real people tend to be more accurate in their criticism than some holier-than-thou critic that lost site of what the public wants years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Like I said, I'd rather run down to the store and buy the CD and have it in half an hour than wait a day. Unfortunately there was a problem 1 hour short of my third download so I am now downloading the third ISO again. So it's going to be about 1 day and 5 hours to download it.
and since it's DSL you're not tying up a phone line. You can use your computer for other things while it's downloading
I can, but I can't start my install until it's fully downloaded. Which means I might get to it this evening rather than yesterday in the morning.
That is nothing! I'd *much* rather do that than pay $50.
Apparently you are cheap and your time is worth nothing. :) I'd rather have paid $50 yesterday and have been using my new installation since yesterday. As it stands, I'm still downloading.
Just out of curiosity, what does DSL run in Mexico?
256k DSL (256 down, 128 up) costs US$60/month. They have 512 and 1024 options, too, but the prices go up really quickly. Interestingly, the price goes up FASTER than the throughput which makes no sense. Welcome to Mexico.
Are you kidding? I'm in Mexico right now and there aren't any "on the shelf" copies of RedHat anywhere near here, so I'm downloading RedHat9 as I write this via my 256k DSL. It's going to take about 7 hours per CD. I would definitely pay $50 (or whatever) if I could walk down to the local store and pick up a boxed set even if I know I can download it for free.
The point isn't that it's not available in Mexico. The point is that if they're going to abandon the boxed set that means people in the U.S. are going to be in the same situation I'm in now. And it sucks. Downloading 2GB of ISOs is a big deterrent for someone that is kind of thinking about switching OSs. Even having to figure out what to do with the ISOs is going to be a challenge for many of them.
I agree with someone else in this thread--it's probably not a good idea. Having your product out on the shelf gets you known and in front of consumers. They may not buy today, but they may buy (or download) in the future. Having RedHat disappear from the shelves could very easily mean, "Oh, where's RedHat? I guess it folded. Oh well" to the average consuemr that might just be starting to hear something about Linux and/or RedHat.
You quote CNN quoting President Clinton. My entire point is that the whole claim that there was a budget surplus is either fancy accounting or outright lies. You quoting CNN quoting President Clinton does not prove your case--I don't deny Clinton said it. He did. What I reject is that he spoke the truth.
Check out the U.S. Treasury yourself where you can see the U.S. debt on a day-day-day basis, or at the end of each fiscal year. Tell me where you see the national debt being reduced by $223 billion in any year of the Clinton administration. You won't. It didn't happen. The debt hasn't been reduced since 1960. THAT IS THE FACT. You are trying to defend a lie from the Clinton administration. I highly suggest you educate yourself as to the truth before committing yourself to a position that is wrong and will just make you look uninformed.
Now, after you click the above link and do your homework come back and let me know what year of the Clinton administration you see the debt go down. Don't base your answer on what Clinton said--base your answer on facts. As you know, politicians often bend them and Clinton was the master bender. But the numbers from the U.S. Treasury don't lie.
There has been no surplus since 1960. The numbers from the U.S. Treasury prove that. Anyone that tells you different is not being honest or is uninformed.
Yeah, but companies in the U.S. are prohibited from operating lotteries. That's why you always have the option of sending in a "ballot" by email "no purchase necessary." Just as now purchase is necessary I doubt MSN Messenger is required--but if you don't have MSN Messenger you might have to resort to snail mailing in your opportunity to win.
I guess we're just ignoring the thousands of Japanese Americans during WWII, right? That was a far more extensive violation of civil liberties based on pure racism.
Some have been released after months of psychological torture (and in some cases, physical torture)
Please post references, especially to those about physical torture.
and don't see how that could be a problem?
It is a problem and I think the Patriot Act should go away. What I disagree with is the claim that we no longer have civil rights and that average Americans are at risk. Is the Patriot Act a bad thing? Yes. Am I worried that I'm going to be pulled over by a police, accused of being a terrorist, and thrown in jail forever? No, I'm not.
Last year, Bush said that the Patriot Act gives him the right to order any American citizen be arrested and jailed forever without charge.
Reference? Link? Did he say that, or is that your interpretation and spin on what he said?
Shortly afterwards, he said that his Constitutional role as Commander in Chief of the armed forces gives him the right to order any American citizen be executed whether on foreign or U.S. soil.
Reference? Link? Did he say that, or is that your interpretation and spin on what he said?
It is people like you who do nothing and even gloat about it that are causing the downfall of our country faster than Osama could have ever dreamed.
It is extremists that misrepresent the views of others that give liberals and Democrats a bad name. Please provide me with the links I asked for above, then we'll talk.
Check the official record: here. Please tell me in what year you see the debt go down.
Once you realize that you can't believe everything that Democrats tell you you will be much better equipped to understand reality.
It's a natural reaction to the Democrats trying to pin it on the Republicans.
Who is responsible for the national debt counter being turned on?
We've had a debt since 1791. As the same source shows, Clinton increased the debt 1.610 trillion, to Reagan's increase of $1.672 trillion--a whopping $62 billion difference. And considering Reagan received an economy in recession, decreased taxes, and defeated the Soviet Union it is amazing he only spent $62 billion more than Clinton who received a growing economy, increased taxes, and didn't really do anything in his 8 years.
Who spend over 500 billion dollars in their first 3 months of office?
Hmm, well, considering the budget in place 3 months into Bush's presidency was Clinton's last budget that is actually a very good question.
Who is in control of the senate and congress?
Republicans now. Your point?
Who is starting wars just to boost their popularity rating not even caring that we could not afford it?
Do you really believe that? Bush's father didn't win his next election starting a war. Bush's current popularity is back to where it was pre-9/11. I don't see any significant increase in his popularity because of this war and if Democrats succeed at their current publicity campaign, they might actually convince the electorate that Bush lied about it and it might actually HURT him.
I don't think you are really paying attention to current events.
Who is resposible for the fact that you now PERSONALLY owe the federal government $72,000?
$72k? How do you figure? The debt (as of last night) was $6,722,160,964,748.21 and if we assume 280 million citizens that's $24k each, not $72k. I assume you are dividing by the number of taxpayers, but that's not really accurate since anyone can make money and most of the children eventually will. So dividing by the current number of taxpayers isn't very useful since it's not necessarily the current taxpayers that will pay it all.
But to answer your question:
1791-1980: $930 billion
Reagan: $1.672 trillion. Started with a bad economy, cut taxes, and defeated Soviet Union.
Bush Sr: $1.462 trillion. Started with a good economy, increased taxes, got stuck in a 9-month recession, fought war with Iraq.
Clinton: $1.610 trillion. Received a growing economy, increased taxes, didn't do much else.
GWB: $1.05 trillion to-date. Reecived an economy falling into recession, 9/11 happened, slow recovery, war in Afghanistan and war in Iraq.
So there you have it. Who created the debt? Clinton is second-only to Reagan. What's really amazing is that with a growing economy, no costly war, and a tax INCREASE he almost beat Reagan in terms of total deficit spending! And somehow he gets away with supposedly balancing the budget. Hello, McFly??
It is the current administrations fault and their fault alone
See above. You are very far from being right. Yes, there has been deficit spending in the last 2 years. But don't pretend that all our woes have been created by Bush in the last two years. If that's your position it's not even worth discussing it with you as you are clearly out of touch with reality.
Now you get back to work, because you probably wont have a job in 2 years.
I'm self-employed, I'm happy to say. Unless I fire myself I'll be fine.
Smoke and mirrors. I have a projection that I'll be a millionaire next year. I'll let you know how that works out.
Fact remains, people think Clinton balanced the budget. He did nothing of the sort.
The "problem" with the Patriot Act is that, supposedly, it lets the government just accuse you of being a terrorist and then hold you indefinitely. While I won't deny that there have been violations of civil liberties, I haven't seen anything that convinces me that there are any more violations than there were before. They may be more publicized now, but people have their civil rights violated on a daily basis.
When the Bush administration starts pulling people over on traffic stops and accuses them of being a terrorist because they were speeding and throws them in jail indefinitely, we have a problem. But so far I really haven't seen the Patriot Act abused in that way.
YMMV.
In fact, I used one... ONCE. We were still parked at the gate and I didn't have a cell phone and I made a quick 30-second call to let 'em know I had made the earlier flight so they should leave for the airport NOW.
Of course, had I had a cell phone it wouldn't have been an issue since we were still at the gate.
I thought there was talk of discontinuing them on several airlines as well.
Every American Airlines flight I've been on this year has a little sticker on the phone that says "Service discontinued effective March 31, 2002." I assume that means the phone in the seat no longer works. I've wondered why they discontinued the service. Not profitable? Security? Company offering the phone service went out of business?
Yep. Have yours been infringed lately? Mine haven't.
Remember budget surpluses?
Not since 1960 when the debt went down by $500 million. Despite urban legend, there was no budget surplus under the Clinton administration. Or if there was I'd like someone to explain where it was spent, because it certainly didn't reduce the debt--which means it wasn't really a surplus.
Remember an economy that was working?
The one that Clinton nuked and then handed off to Bush as he left office?
Remember employment?
Business cycles suck, don't they? This wasn't the first recession and it won't be the last.
Stop YOUR whining and get to work.
A week or two later I got a physical letter in the mail that addressed what I had mentioned in my email. I can't say how personalized it was--perhaps he just had a generic response prepared for anyone that wrote about that particular topic. But just getting a response from him at all was more than I expected.
You think that this or the previous administration read all the email that it got? At best they had a bank of secretaries reading and responding to it. That's arguably the same as not reading it.
When a government doesn't have time to listen to the people it's supposed to govern, you know that it's grown too large.
While I agree that a government should listen to its people, that is largely done at the ballot box. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that in a country of nearly 300 million people where it takes just a few seconds fir anyone to rocket off an email to anyone--including the president--that the president or even the staff is going to be able to reply or even read every submission.
More power to local governments
I agree with you there.
I Googled it and read a number of pages. It looks to me like it explains the civil procedure, but I didn't find any reference that says a single plaintiff can indiscriminantly sue a "class" of defendents. Can you give me an exact paragraph citation where I can find that? It just seems that if that were the case that we'd see more lawsuits of that type, and I've never heard of one.
Of course, DirecTV goes after people individually. The problem is that they do so indiscriminantly. I'm not seeing where that is defined, encouraged, or protected by rule 26.
Likewise, I can't preserve your right to petition government and at the same time complain about not being able to limit lawsuits I don't like.
Petitioning the government and limiting frivolous lawsuits against non-government organizations and individuals are two entirely different topics.
Job creation always lags after the beginning of a recovery. Companies have to see the recovery has legs before they start to commit to hiring people. This is nothing new.
Why did we go from a $200B surplus in 2000 to a record $475B deficit this year?
Oh, please. There was never a $200B surplus. The debt increased by $20 billion even in 2000 and grew by $1.6 trillion under Clinton. What you heard about a balanced budget was smoke and mirrors--there was never a surplus as shown by the above U.S. debt web page that shows that the deficit never went down in any year of the Clinton administration.
As for the deficit, that always happens during a recession and the beginning of the subsequent recovery. Until companies are convinced the recovery has legs there are still people that are jobless which are drawing unemployment while not paying taxes on income. Plus we had military action in the wake of 9/11.
But you already knew that...
Yes, but in those cases many plaintiffs joint together in a class action suit against a single company accusing it of a single bad behavior that effected all of them. You can't reverse it and say, therefore, a corporation has the right to sue en masse many individuals they accuse of similar "crimes." I.e., the class action suit is based on the assumption that the bad behavior of a corporation affected many plaintiffs--the corporation is singularly accused of the crime, but there are many plaintiffs. In this case, there is a single plaintiff and they are accusing many people of a crime. Not the same thing.
Even so, in a class action lawsuit I believe that once the corporation is found guilty and monetary damages are established, relief is granted to each plaintiff on a case by case basis and that is when the plaintiff may get little or nothing if they have no claim to relief. But that happens once the corporation has been found guilty of the accusation. Here, DirecTV is demanding $3500 without even determining in court whether you are guilty.
There exist procedural grounds, often quite difficult to overcome, by which a single plaintiff can sue a kazillion defendants as a class. Neither procedural vehicle requires as a precondition that all the individual cases are resolved and determined before the suits are filed.
Can you cite that? I'm not saying you're wrong, I've just never heard of anything like that. And it seems wrong. If this is the case, why doesn't the RIAA use this tactic?
That these are handled in the present case as a kazillion suits instead of one doesn't change the analysis or make inherently wrong any of these efforts to remedy what some people consider to be a civil wrong.
I would say that sending threatening letters and demanding payment of $3500 or the risk of prosecution in federal court to people that may OR MAY NOT be huilty is inherently wrong, is extortion, and should be illegal. It's a big company bullying individuals. If they have evidence of guilt, sue that person. But DirecTV is going on a fishing expedition.
Being wrong within an allegation doesn't make it objectively baseless, that is a sham.
It does make it objectiveley baseless and a sham if the allegation is made without any due diligence in determining whether the allegation is correct. If I broke the law, sue me. But to assume that I broke the law because I purchased something that can be used to break the law is a fishing expedition.
We are a nation grounded in the right to petition, which includes that right to sue -- so long as the SOLE reason isn't to harm people -- even if the principal and guiding reason is to do so.
How can you actually believe that? I agree that we have the right to sue people that harm us. But I don't think it is written anywhere that we have the right to sue anyone that we think may have harmed us or could have harmed us had they wanted to without having some significant evidence that suggests someone actually DID harm us.
The problem here is that DirecTV is taking the purchase of devices that have legal uses as "evidence" of harm. That's BS because they can't prove what the device was used for. As it has been said, a cable descrambler has only one use and its illegal. These ISO smartcard programmers DO have legal uses so to use the purchase of said device as evidence of intent to steal DirecTV's signal is absurd. They should need to provide something more substantial in the way of evidence before being allowed to bully consumers and launch frivolous lawsuits... and they frivolous not in that the crime they allege is unimportant, it's frivolous because they don't have sufficient evidence to prov
I'm so sick of big businesses making up for their technical or business insufficiencies through legislation and lawsuits. At the very least RIAA goes after endusers that they (apparently) have evidence have been sharing files. But for DirecTV to go after everyone that ever purchased a certain type of hardware is essentially like the RIAA sending a nastygram to everyone that bought a computer and has broadband. Sure, you'll probably catch some bad guys but your selection criteria is so broad as to be abusive.
It's almost like the cops putting up a roadblock on the freeway and issuing a speeding violation to 6 out of every 10 people because, on average, 60% of people speed. It should be just as illegal for DirecTV to use that method as it is for police.
I am somewhat worried about this whole affair because I did purchase one of these devices. Some years ago a visitor to my website that deals with microcontrollers wrote me asking about how to write microcontroller programs for smartcards. I didn't even know, until then, that smartcards HAD microcontrollers. So I immediately became excited at the possible applications and went out and bought one of these devices since I was going to play with the technology and, perhaps, come up with new products. Or at the very least expand my own microcontroller knowledge.
Now it turns out that DirecTV is threatening anyone that purchased one of these devices. I don't doubt that many or even most people that purchase(d) them do so for less than legitimate uses, but there ARE those of us who have legitimate uses for them. The problem is that the article seems to suggest that DirecTV isn't interested in talking about it. They just ask you to pony up $3500. Otherwise they sue you for $10k plus fees. That's absurd.
I haven't received one of these letters, but if I do then I'm definitely going to have to talk to my lawyer about what to do. It's bogus because $3500 is certainly going to be less than to defend my legal use of the device. At that point, it's extortion. DirecTV offers a settlement at a price point they know is less than what it will cost anyone to defend themselves so even innocent people just decide to cave and send them a check for $3500. But that's so much BS being in a position to have to pay DirecTV $3500 because if they sue you it's going to cost more.
I don't have DirecTV, Dish, or cable. I don't even live in the U.S. right now. But if/when I move back to the U.S. I can guarantee you I WON'T be subscribing to DirecTV regardless of whether or not I ever receive one of these letters.
So now you want to blame Bush for what "might happen" even though it hasn't happened yet? Yeah, the economy could still go plop. If/when it happens we'll talk about that.
Incidentally, I hope I don't have to remind you that the largest peacetime economic expansion in history also occurred under Clinton's policies
Nope, don't have to remind me. I heard it enough during the last few years of the Clinton administration and during the 2000 campaign.
However, the second largest expansion was during the Reagan administration. The "Clinton" expansion was 100 months while the Reagan expansion was 92 months. There was only a 9-month recession in between the two (coincidentally when Bush Sr. decided to raise taxes)... So it could quite easily be argued that the "Clinton" expansion was simply an extension of the Reagan expansion that was interrupted by tax hikes. And even if you want to consider them two separate expansions, the Clinton expansion definitely exceeded the Reagan expansion due exclusively to the tech bubble at the end of the 90's. If it weren't for that artificial bump it is doubtful the Clinton expansion would have been able to claim that title in the first place and would still be second to the Reagan expansion of the 80's.
coupled with the fact that no period of prosperity can last forever, are the prime contributors to the current recession.
I would agree with that.
The fact that two huge tax cuts still haven't really gotten it back on its feet indicate to me that Voodoo Economics still doesn't work.
Well that indicates to me that the business and economic cycles are just plain strong, and a relatively small tax cut isn't sufficient to overcome those natural cycles in economics. But leaving money in the hands of those who make it--both rich and poor--is always a good idea.
Feel free to believe what you want and twist the facts as you want, but the reality is that this economy was damaged more than anything by unreal expectations during the technology bubble. But if you want to go into radical political mode you have to understand the facts: 1) The economy entered a recession under Clinton's policy and budget. 2) The economy began to recover (albeit slowly) a month after Bush's first federal budget took effect.
All I know is critics very seldom get it right. I can't tell you how many "4-star" movies we've gone to that were "critically acclaimed" and maybe even won awards that had us yawning 5 minutes into the movie. I've gone so far as to suggest that on a 4-star scale if you want to know the real worth of a movie take the score given by the critics and subtract it from 4. That'll give you an idea of its entertainment value.
I figure the critics are some elitist jerks and they most criticize (or praise) works to score points in some weird cultural group that actually cares what they think--or that they think care what they think.
I just know I've gone to 5 too many movies that were "critically acclaimed" and had be downright bored in 5 minutes and left me with nothing. I'm not saying that I need shoot-em-up-action to keep my interest and I've seen some good movies that leave you with something. But, interestingly, these aren't the movies that usually are highly acclaimed. It's the stupid, what-did-you-smoke-before-you-filmed-this-movie type of movies that somehow get praised by critics that are apparently out of touch with what the rest of the world is interested in seeing.
Anyway, enough ranting. But you stumbled on something that really has struck me as silly as years. Why does any idiot critic think he is "qualified" to judge what I will like or what I should like?
Want to know the best way to decide whether to watch a movie or listen to music? Wait a week and read VIEWER response. Real people tend to be more accurate in their criticism than some holier-than-thou critic that lost site of what the public wants years ago.
But those that learn all the details will probably be the ones you least want to know all the details.