My (admittedly high) goals was a web developer that new PHP, could work with Linux (SSH), and had very basic client-side programming (C, Perl, whatever) to develop more tools for us down the road. Oh, and someone that could do some graphic art work would be a definite value-add.
The reason you probably didn't get high level developers applying is that your job description looks like an entry level position.
I generally expect a senior position to make some mention of SDLC, database, something interesting...
I asked you to calm down and stop calling people names simply because they disagreed with you. How hard is that? Sheesh.
The suppression of the freedom of speech which you seek to rationalize was harmful.
But you've admitted that there was no such supression. People made a choice to not participate because it was boring to have multiple sides of a debate. That in no way qualifies as suppresion of free speech.
In seeking to extinguish dissent, those so engaged were acting to eliminate the first amendment rights purely for their own political ends.
How on earth can you possibly argue that having a counterpoint to a point is extinguishing dissent?
That you approve of this sort of appalling, totalitarian action says more about your low character than any amount of your dishonest rationalizations can undo.
I find this approach of stifling freedom, and promoting totalitarian thought with the wrappings of defending freedom and liberty to be humourous, but surely you don't believe this bullshit yourself? I know I for one am getting really tired of this, and I think the evidence presented in the fact that Republicans are polling at historical lows would seem to indicate that Americans in general are really getting tired of bullshit.
So here's a tip. Instead of spewing bullshit and spin, why don't you just address the issue honestly?
If Liberals were in control of the airwaves, wouldn't you like it if conservatives had a chance to respond?
The 'old' media has a clear left bias (Newspapers and Broadcast TV),
That's an assertion, but there is certainly no proof of that.
One merely has to look at the coverage that Bill Clinton with a 60% favorability rating received compared to the coverage that President Bush with a 23% favorability rating receives to see the untruth of that statement. The leadup to the Iraq war where the media refused to question statements which were obviously untrue is another example of the right-wing bias of the media.
Your projecting regarding the Pravda thing though.
30 years of beating the drum to silence any dissent of conservative thought, and you don't think Republicans believe an awful lot like Communists? You sir, are in serious denial.
Without your dishonesty and lies, you really don't have anything.
If you'd just sit down and think about this rationally instead of yelling and screaming and calling everybody names, maybe we could get somewhere.
The argument you are now making is that nobody was harmed by the Fairness Doctrine, because the supposed censoring was of all political stances. How exactly is that bad?
It certainly seems better than the system we have today where the right-wing get's all of it's propaganda on the air, but there is nothing to counter it or put it into question.
Broadcast radio (Rush Limbaugh) is not 'liberal'. (US standard definition=Socialist light, Statest.)
Broadcast news (ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS) is.
Broadcast news is liberal because it's not Rush Limbaugh? Huh?
I'm still baffled. At what point in time did Republicans really think that following the policy positions of Soviet Communists was a good idea? That the only news should be Pravda, and it should be written by the party because anything else was clearly biased.
I find it interesting that you actually have not bothered to try to refute that the Fairness Doctrine was used to suppress political opposition. So, little baby, care to do so?
Let me see if I have your argument correct.
1. The right places their opinions on the air. 2. The left uses the Fairness Doctrine to put their counterpoint opinions on the air. 3. This is boring, so the right will just stop placing opinions on the air.... 4. Profit!
So the end result was the left and right have no opinions on the air.
But that's not what you were arguing. You were arguing that the left still got to place their opinions on the air, but the right never got to counter them... apparently because the Fairness Doctrine only applied to the left, and the right was incapable of using it to place their opinions on the air.
When the assertion is made that the media is liberal, it is because little babies don't like when people point out they are wrong.
Fixed your assertion for you.
Oh come on, we all know the liberal media claim is pure politics. It's part of a game of playing the victim so you don't have to be responsible. I expect you know this, and it'd be nice if you could be honest with yourself about it.
This is a good theory, but it all centers on the idea that the news has a liberal bias.
It's a proven fact that is not the case. The cheerleading that went on for the Iraq war undermines your entire position. So nice theory, but it's full of holes.
I think you are right on the profit motives though. That's really all this was about, as others noted most liberals don't like listening to propaganda but prefer to have news and facts so that they can make up their own minds. Thus the failure of liberal radio to attract much of a market.
So all of this partisan political dance is about making sure a couple of radio stations make a big profit. The very definition of a Statist Economy.
That entry also mentions "and added that the Supreme Court would be "forced" to revisit the constitutionality of the doctrine if it did have "the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing speech."
It's interesting that because the net effect was the reduction of speech, we've had to build alternative means. Thus the success of Jon Stewart on Comedy Central, and internet blogs.
I don't know if that is good or bad, but it has made broadcast news irrelevant and they're losing market as a result.
I agree, although I would make cityFileServer a DNS entry which points to the physical server and use some cryptic name for the physical server... like cityserver01 or something just to differentiate it. That way when you replace cityserver01 with cityserver06, you just need to change the DNS pointer to start using it, as you don't have to reconfigure other systems pointing to it.
eh? Prescription drug plan was a signature issue of Bush's in the 2000 campaign and it was signed in 2003. I don't see how any of this could have come as some sort of surprise to you. Maybe you just aren't as well informed as you think you are?
Besides the Prescription bill was everything the Republicans could hope for. If the Democratic party had written the bill, it would have ended up costing the Government less money and that is bad.
Are you under some mistaken impression that Bush ever won a national election for a reason other than the fact that he was less awful (only slightly) than the other guy?
Wait, is this kind of like how Bush was supposed to be better than Clinton?
Have you considered that maybe your judgement just isn't very sound?
It should be noted that Robert Bork wrote a brief arguing in favor of the Justice Departments case against Microsoft. Robert Bork = The father of conservative legal theory, most notably pertaining to anti-trust as found in "The Antitrust Paradox".
BTW, the notion that someone like GW Bush who was hailed by all Republicans[back in 1999-2005 timeframe before his approval rating hit 28%] as being the Great Savior of Conservatism, is somehow no longer a Conservative is laughable. It reminds me of the Communists who argued the collapse of the Soviet Union didn't count because they weren't really Communist.
The main problem I have with Libertarians is that they don't trust the government, but believe in the inherent goodness of corporations.
I distrust both.
Which, interestingly, was the ideals of the founding fathers to distrust anything controlled by man and have checks and balances to negate such influence.
It seems to exemplify what is wrong with modern journalism/punditry. They're acting as if Russert wasn't just the guy telling the story, he was a part of the story.
This was worthy of a breaking news bit, and some coverage on the 6pm news, along with a memorial 2 hour special a week later. But they've been going on non stop since like 4 pm this afternoon.
I doubt Walter Cronkhite will ever get this kind of coverage when he dies, and he was 10 times the reporter all of these people are I see on the tubes today.
My point isn't whoa is me, my point is, you can't claim that Obama is somehow more fiscally responsible than Bush or McCain when he isn't proposing anything that positively affects our impending financial implosion.
Sure I can. At least Obama is being rational about it, discussing the situation with economists and real people and proposing options that we may have to implement when the time comes that it's a problem.
McCain's only proposal is that we should Privatize Social Security and turn it into a big slush fund for financial advisors. Sure that's going to help make a few brokers rich, but the taxpayers are going to get stuck with the tab bailing out that clusterfuck.
More government programs just means more things we can't afford. But hey, as long as you don't get stuck with the bill, it's responsible I guess.
Which reminds me about McCain's irresponsible position on Iraq. Spend how much over the next 100 years, just because he doesn't want to admit we fucked up? I'm sorry, no.
You want to "pay as we go", but we can't pay for what we've already promised.
So what do you think we should do about it? Since we've promised it, we have to deliver right? That is what you are arguing. We can't renege on our promise, we can't do anything about this. We should just sit around and whine and rend our clothes and yell "WHOA IS ME!"
Or, alternatively you could realize that a promise from the Government ain't much of a promise. Next week Congress could enact legislation that cut everybodies social security checks by 10% and there isn't a damn thing anybody can do about it except to THROW THE BUMS OUT.
And guess what? If and when such a time comes that the only reasonable way to pay the bills is to cut Social Security checks by 10%, that is exactly what will happen. Those aren't unfunded liabilities, because if the government can't afford them they disappear. Same with what we spend every year on military, education, transportation, everything. Your notion of an entitlement is a fantasy.
So we can't do anything about the future, until the future comes. So we're back to now. Nobody is going to raise taxes to 70% so why worry about it?
Now, today, is the only time we can actually do anything.
Interesting. But fanciful, as those predictions are not without a great deal of error.
Let me offer my political ideology.
I think expenses and revenues should balance. Only by paying for what you spend can you formulate a political discussion that says "We are spending too much!" And that's really it. That's my plan to solve the problem you speak of. You tax what you spend. If taxes get too high, meaning spending is too high, the politicians will hear about it. They'll get ousted from office and new politicians elected with a mandate to do something about taxes or spending or both.
McCain doesn't support this. He still lives in a fantasy world where you can cut taxes, increase spending and borrow the difference and nobody cares.
Obama, while I haven't heard him come out in support of the Balanced Budget Amendment, does at least support Pay as you Go. That's progress.
What is important, fundamentally, is the debate. Not about what may lie in the future, but what is happening now. Right now. Where is our money going, how is it being spent, and what do the people want. Government is a long term process, it may take several election cycles before the public decides which way they want to go and what they want to see, but eventually it will happen.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason you probably didn't get high level developers applying is that your job description looks like an entry level position.
I generally expect a senior position to make some mention of SDLC, database, something interesting...
I asked you to calm down and stop calling people names simply because they disagreed with you. How hard is that? Sheesh.
But you've admitted that there was no such supression. People made a choice to not participate because it was boring to have multiple sides of a debate. That in no way qualifies as suppresion of free speech.
How on earth can you possibly argue that having a counterpoint to a point is extinguishing dissent?
I find this approach of stifling freedom, and promoting totalitarian thought with the wrappings of defending freedom and liberty to be humourous, but surely you don't believe this bullshit yourself? I know I for one am getting really tired of this, and I think the evidence presented in the fact that Republicans are polling at historical lows would seem to indicate that Americans in general are really getting tired of bullshit.
So here's a tip. Instead of spewing bullshit and spin, why don't you just address the issue honestly?
If Liberals were in control of the airwaves, wouldn't you like it if conservatives had a chance to respond?
That's an assertion, but there is certainly no proof of that.
One merely has to look at the coverage that Bill Clinton with a 60% favorability rating received compared to the coverage that President Bush with a 23% favorability rating receives to see the untruth of that statement. The leadup to the Iraq war where the media refused to question statements which were obviously untrue is another example of the right-wing bias of the media.
30 years of beating the drum to silence any dissent of conservative thought, and you don't think Republicans believe an awful lot like Communists? You sir, are in serious denial.
If you'd just sit down and think about this rationally instead of yelling and screaming and calling everybody names, maybe we could get somewhere.
The argument you are now making is that nobody was harmed by the Fairness Doctrine, because the supposed censoring was of all political stances. How exactly is that bad?
It certainly seems better than the system we have today where the right-wing get's all of it's propaganda on the air, but there is nothing to counter it or put it into question.
Broadcast news is liberal because it's not Rush Limbaugh? Huh?
I'm still baffled. At what point in time did Republicans really think that following the policy positions of Soviet Communists was a good idea? That the only news should be Pravda, and it should be written by the party because anything else was clearly biased.
Let me see if I have your argument correct.
1. The right places their opinions on the air. ...
2. The left uses the Fairness Doctrine to put their counterpoint opinions on the air.
3. This is boring, so the right will just stop placing opinions on the air.
4. Profit!
So the end result was the left and right have no opinions on the air.
But that's not what you were arguing. You were arguing that the left still got to place their opinions on the air, but the right never got to counter them... apparently because the Fairness Doctrine only applied to the left, and the right was incapable of using it to place their opinions on the air.
This is obviously super clever logic.
Fixed your assertion for you.
Oh come on, we all know the liberal media claim is pure politics. It's part of a game of playing the victim so you don't have to be responsible. I expect you know this, and it'd be nice if you could be honest with yourself about it.
This is a good theory, but it all centers on the idea that the news has a liberal bias.
It's a proven fact that is not the case. The cheerleading that went on for the Iraq war undermines your entire position. So nice theory, but it's full of holes.
I think you are right on the profit motives though. That's really all this was about, as others noted most liberals don't like listening to propaganda but prefer to have news and facts so that they can make up their own minds. Thus the failure of liberal radio to attract much of a market.
So all of this partisan political dance is about making sure a couple of radio stations make a big profit. The very definition of a Statist Economy.
Can you explain why John McCain has been given a free pass by the media, considering your claim that they are all liberals?
That entry also mentions "and added that the Supreme Court would be "forced" to revisit the constitutionality of the doctrine if it did have "the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing speech."
It's interesting that because the net effect was the reduction of speech, we've had to build alternative means. Thus the success of Jon Stewart on Comedy Central, and internet blogs.
I don't know if that is good or bad, but it has made broadcast news irrelevant and they're losing market as a result.
So they finally admit that the media isn't liberal.
LOL!
I like that phrase. I'm going to borrow it. :-)
I agree, although I would make cityFileServer a DNS entry which points to the physical server and use some cryptic name for the physical server... like cityserver01 or something just to differentiate it. That way when you replace cityserver01 with cityserver06, you just need to change the DNS pointer to start using it, as you don't have to reconfigure other systems pointing to it.
eh? Prescription drug plan was a signature issue of Bush's in the 2000 campaign and it was signed in 2003. I don't see how any of this could have come as some sort of surprise to you. Maybe you just aren't as well informed as you think you are?
Besides the Prescription bill was everything the Republicans could hope for. If the Democratic party had written the bill, it would have ended up costing the Government less money and that is bad.
Wait, is this kind of like how Bush was supposed to be better than Clinton?
Have you considered that maybe your judgement just isn't very sound?
So much enthusiasm back in 2000 and 2004. All the 'W - Still the President!' in your face bumper stickers.
and now so much denial.
It should be noted that Robert Bork wrote a brief arguing in favor of the Justice Departments case against Microsoft. Robert Bork = The father of conservative legal theory, most notably pertaining to anti-trust as found in "The Antitrust Paradox".
BTW, the notion that someone like GW Bush who was hailed by all Republicans[back in 1999-2005 timeframe before his approval rating hit 28%] as being the Great Savior of Conservatism, is somehow no longer a Conservative is laughable. It reminds me of the Communists who argued the collapse of the Soviet Union didn't count because they weren't really Communist.
The main problem I have with Libertarians is that they don't trust the government, but believe in the inherent goodness of corporations.
I distrust both.
Which, interestingly, was the ideals of the founding fathers to distrust anything controlled by man and have checks and balances to negate such influence.
It seems to exemplify what is wrong with modern journalism/punditry. They're acting as if Russert wasn't just the guy telling the story, he was a part of the story.
This was worthy of a breaking news bit, and some coverage on the 6pm news, along with a memorial 2 hour special a week later. But they've been going on non stop since like 4 pm this afternoon.
I doubt Walter Cronkhite will ever get this kind of coverage when he dies, and he was 10 times the reporter all of these people are I see on the tubes today.
Sure I can. At least Obama is being rational about it, discussing the situation with economists and real people and proposing options that we may have to implement when the time comes that it's a problem.
McCain's only proposal is that we should Privatize Social Security and turn it into a big slush fund for financial advisors. Sure that's going to help make a few brokers rich, but the taxpayers are going to get stuck with the tab bailing out that clusterfuck.
Which reminds me about McCain's irresponsible position on Iraq. Spend how much over the next 100 years, just because he doesn't want to admit we fucked up? I'm sorry, no.
Annoying, ain't it?
I wasn't throwing insults, just merely pointing out some relative facts pertinent to the discussion.
So what do you think we should do about it? Since we've promised it, we have to deliver right? That is what you are arguing. We can't renege on our promise, we can't do anything about this. We should just sit around and whine and rend our clothes and yell "WHOA IS ME!"
Or, alternatively you could realize that a promise from the Government ain't much of a promise. Next week Congress could enact legislation that cut everybodies social security checks by 10% and there isn't a damn thing anybody can do about it except to THROW THE BUMS OUT.
And guess what? If and when such a time comes that the only reasonable way to pay the bills is to cut Social Security checks by 10%, that is exactly what will happen. Those aren't unfunded liabilities, because if the government can't afford them they disappear. Same with what we spend every year on military, education, transportation, everything. Your notion of an entitlement is a fantasy.
So we can't do anything about the future, until the future comes. So we're back to now. Nobody is going to raise taxes to 70% so why worry about it?
Now, today, is the only time we can actually do anything.
Who said you were stupid? I certainly didn't.
Just because something is a Known Fact(tm) doesn't mean it's a fact. That's all I was pointing out.
Interesting. But fanciful, as those predictions are not without a great deal of error.
Let me offer my political ideology.
I think expenses and revenues should balance. Only by paying for what you spend can you formulate a political discussion that says "We are spending too much!" And that's really it. That's my plan to solve the problem you speak of. You tax what you spend. If taxes get too high, meaning spending is too high, the politicians will hear about it. They'll get ousted from office and new politicians elected with a mandate to do something about taxes or spending or both.
McCain doesn't support this. He still lives in a fantasy world where you can cut taxes, increase spending and borrow the difference and nobody cares.
Obama, while I haven't heard him come out in support of the Balanced Budget Amendment, does at least support Pay as you Go. That's progress.
What is important, fundamentally, is the debate. Not about what may lie in the future, but what is happening now. Right now. Where is our money going, how is it being spent, and what do the people want. Government is a long term process, it may take several election cycles before the public decides which way they want to go and what they want to see, but eventually it will happen.