The idea that marriage is for reproduction is ridiculous, as I tried to make clear above.
Well you certainly didn't do a very good job of it. And frankly, I think it is ridiculous that you can even say this. Of course it is for reproduction.
Listen. Find a stay at home mom in touch with what she is doing, and ask her what the most important thing is in her life. She won't say "My husband," she will say "My kids."
also, just a note. I dont' blame gays for the problems with marriage. That's just the social fabric unwinding.
A man or woman who is sterile due to age or accident or choice should not be allowed to marry?
Hmm. I think there are certain rights of marriage, like reduced taxation, that are there to help a couple prepare for and to raise kids. So I don't think that those kinds of laws should apply to people who don't intend to have kids.
However, I think it would be very difficult to show that, probably more costly to enforce than the savings gained by the law.
Bush has stated that in order to "protect" (from what, exactly?) marriage,
Oh right. Well, then he hasn't flip flopped at all if he doesn't call it marriage, by his definition. Of course, my view is let them call it marriage, get married in the church, etc., but just take away those rights, such as tax law savings, medical coverage sharing, that are for having a family. I guess I can agree with bush there is an attack on those parts of marriage.
Hey, if it isn't a huge greedy grab by gay people, and if it is for the reasons they state, such as home ownership transfers, hospital visits, etc. then they should be happy with a civil union, which can give them many of those things, just hopefully it won't drain the tax coffers anymore by having them obtain benefits designed for children.
Ever hear of adoption? Artificial insemination? Kids from previous relationships? These situations are pretty common in both straight and gay families.
He says he doesn't support gay marriage, just unions. Personally, I think there are some parts of marriage law designed for the children presumed to come from that union.
I don't think it is a reasonable assumption in the case of gay relationships that the union will yield children.
So this seems reasonable to me, and doesn't strike me as flip flopping.
Kerry's attitude is basically to say anything he needs to in order to get elected.
That's not Bush's attitude?
You know, I'm a fiscally conservative atheist. I don't think month old feti (fetuses?) are alive, I don't think gays are evil, or bad or wrong.
But when it comes to Bush, you have to be intellectually honest. Kerry just wants the job. I don't believe there is any idealism inside of the man, and he reminds me of Grey Davis.
I think Bush really is what he claims to be, which is a man of very deep convictions, and even charitable convictions. He will not say whatever it takes to get elected, but will do what he believes is right.
Today western civilzation is confonted by a deadly peril from the middle east. I trust Bush to confront this peril. I don't know what to believe when it comes to Kerry.
You know, it's just ridiculous that this stupid post is somehow rated informative and insightful. What's informative about it? Why is it insightful? It isn't. let's take it a bit at a time:
That's because you don't understand the ideology. You have simply reduced it to the simplest form possible presumably because you are not capable of understanding more complex thought patterns.
This is simply a rude assertion. This post should be modded "flamebait," or "troll." There is no evidence provided. This sounds like something a Religious leader might ASSERT "Oh, you can't understand the glory of god, so just have faith. [Besides, if you don't you will be damned to hell, or by way of implication of the poster, if you don't agree with him you are stupid, and incapable of complex thought]"
Once again your inability to think beyond black and white has painted yourself into a corner.
I am not really going to go into it but here are the salient points.
Rude assertion again, then "I'm not going to go into it. .." Why not? Because this poster has no real basis, only claims and assertions. However, I think the poster gives himself away "You can't think beyond black and white." I think what the poster really means is "You actually are specific and think in a concrete manner, which I can't do because everytime I try I stop making sense even to myself."
1) We should help people all over the world if they need it to the best of our ability.
Another assertion. Why should we? What does "if they need it" mean? Perhaps it means we should kick out dictators, hmmm? Oh, I'll bet that isnt' what you mean. Why don't you tell us what it means to "help everyone to the best of our ability." I suspect you don't do this, now do you? Another feel good statement that really doesn't mean anything.
2) It's impossible to help everybody in the world because there is so much poverty and we really don't have enough money or willpower. Even if we really wanted to give a 100% effort to help the destitute of the world we would be fought tooth and nail by the republicans.
Well, you don't say what "help" means. Certainly, the US government could easily make sure the entire world had all almost all the different kinds of drugs (once you know the recipe, it is usually easy to make the drug), certainly there is enough food. Shelter? I suspect that we could probably figure out how to do that too. But, is this really helping? I think it is one of the most evil things to do, to make people dependent on handouts. Again, you really don't say what "help" means, but that's typical because you really don't have anything real to offer, by your own admission.
3) Charity begins at home. We really ought to tace care of our own problems first. We should devote MOST of our resources to making sure our own citizens are taken care of first.
What does this mean? Do you mean because I was born near someone else I have to take care of them before taking care of someone farther away? Why is that true? Frankly, I suspect I have a lot more in common with some of the hardworking mexicans than I have in common with you. This whole statement is designed to appeal based on patriotism, but again, it means simply nothing.
Why is "most" the bar? And why not "all?" Or even "almost all?" Why is "most" somehow better than "none?" You just make these statements that you and your fellow non-thinkers believe are so great, but they really have nothing inside of them.
You see, it's not that hard. Just compassion mixed with a little bit of realism. We still favor giving money to poor countries and helping them as much as we can but not at the expense of denying our own citizens.
Finally, we can agree on something. It isn't hard to say nothing, and to make feel good sweeping generalizations with no actual content behind them. Sweeping feel good religious statements.
I've heard it said that there's practically nothing that made it out of the Senate with John Kerry's name attached to it. Nothing.
Well, in my opinion practically nothing did come out of the Senate with Kerry's name on it.
There's so much of that crap that goes on by both sides it's disgusting.
We can certainly agree on this point. I don't know how to fix it. Perhaps we should stop making people feel guilty about not voting, and then only those who actually care enough will vote.
That's because you don't understand the ideology. You have simply reduced it to the simplest form possible presumably because you are not capable of understanding more complex thought patterns.
Actually, I think I understand it all right. It goes something like this:
People in India don't vote for us, people here do. People don't want to lose jobs, so we throw away our ideology for votes.
BTW I noticed that you said "A tenet of the democrats is to help the disadvantaged.". Doesn't it bother you that republicans don't even have that tenant. That they don't believe in helping the disadvantaged?
Actually, I don't think the democrats have it either. They are just pandering for votes. Well, Jimmy Carter might have cared, but I think he was the last one, and he had significant problems as president.
By the way, your post is empty. Full of platitudes, but with no real substance. I don't say that in a mean way, but in an objective way. You can take heart since a bunch of slashdotters ate your dog food and upmodded your post.
Well, I really hate to post to something that is off-topic, and on a post that is even more off-topic but:
To late now, but for the next 4 elections, why don't we find amatures to send to Washington and the state legislatures?
It seems to me that the people we have been electing as president lately have been lightweights.
Look at Kerry's record. He is basically a NOP. The democrat party's choice Gephardt failed.
Bush? That's a republican? Take away his religious stuff, and he sounds like a democrat with the largest expansion of government since Lyndon Johnson.
Clinton? Much loved by many and maligned by many, what did he do of any substance? Frankly, he was the beginning of the feel good presidents.
I love an old SJ mercury opinion (san jose paper), that said "And the GOP grunted and groaned, and the elephant popped out. ..Bob Dole."
Well, the truth is there aren't any good alternatives from the two major parties this year, and I don't think there have been really (inclusive) since George Sr.
This is one area that always made me feel the democrats are ideologically conflicted.
A tenet of the democrats is to help the disadvantaged. India is a very poor country, and so it should be helped. What better way than to let good jobs go to India? The money they obtain will eventually help the entire, poor country.
But somehow, the Democrats have ended up on the other side of this argument. I don't understand how that is ideologically consistent. Because you are born in America, you are worthy of help, but if you are born in India, you are not?
Somehow, I feel if I continue on this line of reasoning, it will be down modded for something it is not, so I'll stop here and let others determine the logical conclusions, which I think are many.
Oh, there's probably nothing illegal about it. That's just innuendo and uncertainty pushed by the democrat party and repeated by the press as if it were news.
You can say it is legal because it is email, but at the least it is predatory and unethical. Unfortunately, behavior such as this is probably going to create a whole new set of laws regulating the behavior.
On an airplane trip someone had accidentally left a business plan for their company in the magazine holder in the seat in front of me. It turns out this happened to be our competitor.
Now, it's true that I was very tempted to look at the contents of it, but I decided not to for several reasons. First, it wasn't my propery. Second, I felt it was unethical, if not illegal. And third, I felt that I might actually hurt someone else who made a simple mistake.
I don't know what laws there are with regard to things like this, but it I'll bet if you receive mail in your postal mailbox addressed to someone else and you open it, you are violating a law.
Also, I don't see this as a stupid mistake, but rather a very easy mistake to make. For instance, there is a game you can play with variations that goes something like this: Ask someone to "spell step ten times", then ask "what do you do when you when you come to a green light? " Often the person will say "stop!" Just like in the email that person sent, which was sent to many.orgs. It is a simple to make mistakes like that and has nothing to do with supidity.
Personally, I think if there is any wrongdoing, it is in websites like georgewbush.org that troll for these kinds of mistakes. It bothers me that because of unethical behavior like this, the free web will increasingly become regulated.
In all, it seems like the making for a very big mess, and I think this election, with things so close, I for one would be suspicious and at least investigate.
One thing I find interesting about this story, is that there is no evidence of any actual wrongdoing, just innuendo, but perhaps this is just part of the democrat playbook, which is to allege claiming voter intimidation, whether it's true or not:
Recently it seems like politics has become more and more positioning and fluff, and less and less issues. Maybe it was always that way, but I hate to think what the political debate would look like if the jerry springer crowd became a significant part of the electorate.
But how would those bribes have prevented the US from throwing its weight around and pushing to keep sanctions up? Because Kerry said he would have worked with the security council members.
If sanctions were lifted, how likely would Saddam's efforts have been to procure most of the world's oil supply?
Well, it was his stated goal. Imagine if he tied French, Russians, Chinese into sweet oil deals, with promises of more. Imagine if he had a nuclear bomb, and other WMD. A person who can destroy a thing controls it.
So now the Bush agenda is nation building? I love how people make the argument that because of Bush, the Iraqis are free.
Let's see. Where do I say "For the iraqis?" I think it says "For the safety of the United States, and the rest of the Western World."
Honestly, the idea of "Yeah, the iraqis are better off," does fall a little flat with me too. but, when you think about the political void that both Saddam and OBL were going after in the middleeast, you begin to see how it's better for the U.S.
A not so well known company actually makes a floating platform that can launch rockets. It's heavily funded by Boeing, and advertises equatorial launches:
Another interesting note is that there are a lot of complaints on the net about how the US government, according to some at the behest of NASA to keep the shuttle viable, has stiffled commercial launches. Here is an interesting site discussing the affect of the laws:
Count me in. Maybe James Sokolov would be willing to do some pro bono work after winning all of that money in mesotheleoma lawsuits.
My kids installed a bunch of spyware on my computers. I hope that means the spyware companies never had a legal right install. The spyware companies stole my cable link, my computing resources, my privacy, and much of my time trying to remove the nasty stuff.
One of those stupid programs left an lsp running after I removed the program, which caused DNS and DHCP to stop working. That computer, which happened to be my wife's, was just about worthless. And yes, my wife held me accountable for it! So let's add emotional distress to the list of crimes this heinous stuff causes.
Ridiculous. DWI is a social problem, but it has been greatly curtailed due to stiff penalties. In fact, this is like saying nothing the legislature does can fix problems, since almost all of what they do is attempt to fix social problems.
Spam will never end as long as there will be fools who buy products advertised by unsolicited commercial e-mail. Period.
The article is about spyware, not about spam.
Anyway, you are wrong about this too. If the state were to execute people who send spam, they will stop it. I'm not saying to do this, though after spending 15 hours cleaning up spyware from my computers, I sometimes feel like the whole greedy, leechlike lot of them should be ground into hamburger and fed to the dogs.
On the one hand you have Bush who actually tried to do something about the political void in the middle east, by establishing in the region a democracy in a relatively rich country. All of western civilization relies on the middle east for the lifeblood of industry: oil, so you can't let Saddam have his way. As we know now, he was unravelling the security council with bribery.
On the other hand, you have a guy, Kerry, who would have gone the route of the inspecters, and continued to let Saddam divide the security council by bribing french and russian officials. An iraq without sactions would be free to pursue Saddam's goal of a pan arab state controlling most of the world's oil supply.
Two leaders have vied for control of politically vaccuous middle east, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Ladin. Bush has removed one, severely curtailed the abilities of another, and has put in place the seeds for politically strong middle eastern governments, which will stablize the region, keep it competetive, and so prevent it from threatening Western Civilization thirty or fourty years from now.
Let's have a study and find out if any of the Kerry supporters have that world view.
The problem is the uneducated electorate, not the policy. The policy is "Western civilization depends on oil. Cut the oil, and you kill western civilization. Make the savage world over there more civilized, by introducting Western Ideals."
Terrorists had the money, the training, and the reason because of the enormous power associated with the oil in that region of the world and because of Western knowhow. Remove the oil, remove that value, and *poof*, the problem goes away. There is nothing to fight for. Don't believe for a second that its about "a way of life going away," what arrogance.
Women in afghanistan are voting given the freedom to because they prefer wearing burkas? "I want to wear a burka, they told me if I go to the polls they will kill me: better go to the polls." Maybe the crazies believe that, much the same way they look at a turtle and watch it die, flipped on its back. "Oh, it's natural." What dreck.
Try to explain that Oil gives the Santa Cruz Eco Facists the power to even have a voice, and they will go ballistic, along with the brain dead media. "Biomass, Solar Power, Corn, anything but nuclear (ironically) and evil oil". You simply can't tell the truth about the interdependency, because somehow it has become evil.
Let's see a similar poll. Kerry wants a bunch of new programs, harping in the meantime about the deficit. Until Kerry can show, really show, how all of these new government programs, including sending more troops to iraq, can be done by rolling back 89 Billin in taxes on those who make > 200K, I'm going to say this is simply partisan sniping.
Politics has become nothing more than a football game, and slashdot readers have been recruited as its fans, thinking, arrogantly, they have the slightest clue, when they are merely parrots admiring the vomit they've reguritaged on their feathers.
So if I understand the gist of this, the idea is that programmers will be replaced because the computers/software we make can program themselves as well as we can. Insofar as all the fun things to think about, genetic algorithms, neural nets, blah blah, you still need the programmer. If you don't, I say the following happens pretty quickly:
1. Computers do all the mental labor out there.
If they can do this how far is it until
2. They can do all the manual labor out there
And then of course from this you have
3. Computers replicate themselves.
Then it won't be just programmers who are obsoleted, programmers will have obsoleted the human race.
I'll wait until computers obsolete something as simple as crop picking before I get too scared.
Slashdot Mirror
The idea that marriage is for reproduction is ridiculous, as I tried to make clear above.
Well you certainly didn't do a very good job of it. And frankly, I think it is ridiculous that you can even say this. Of course it is for reproduction.
Listen. Find a stay at home mom in touch with what she is doing, and ask her what the most important thing is in her life. She won't say "My husband," she will say "My kids."
also, just a note. I dont' blame gays for the problems with marriage. That's just the social fabric unwinding.
A man or woman who is sterile due to age or accident or choice should not be allowed to marry?
Hmm. I think there are certain rights of marriage, like reduced taxation, that are there to help a couple prepare for and to raise kids. So I don't think that those kinds of laws should apply to people who don't intend to have kids.
However, I think it would be very difficult to show that, probably more costly to enforce than the savings gained by the law.
Bush has stated that in order to "protect" (from what, exactly?) marriage,
Oh right. Well, then he hasn't flip flopped at all if he doesn't call it marriage, by his definition. Of course, my view is let them call it marriage, get married in the church, etc., but just take away those rights, such as tax law savings, medical coverage sharing, that are for having a family. I guess I can agree with bush there is an attack on those parts of marriage.
Hey, if it isn't a huge greedy grab by gay people, and if it is for the reasons they state, such as home ownership transfers, hospital visits, etc. then they should be happy with a civil union, which can give them many of those things, just hopefully it won't drain the tax coffers anymore by having them obtain benefits designed for children.
Ever hear of adoption? Artificial insemination? Kids from previous relationships? These situations are pretty common in both straight and gay families.
Ever hear of four leaf clovers?
He says he doesn't support gay marriage, just unions. Personally, I think there are some parts of marriage law designed for the children presumed to come from that union.
I don't think it is a reasonable assumption in the case of gay relationships that the union will yield children.
So this seems reasonable to me, and doesn't strike me as flip flopping.
Kerry's attitude is basically to say anything he needs to in order to get elected.
That's not Bush's attitude?
You know, I'm a fiscally conservative atheist. I don't think month old feti (fetuses?) are alive, I don't think gays are evil, or bad or wrong.
But when it comes to Bush, you have to be intellectually honest. Kerry just wants the job. I don't believe there is any idealism inside of the man, and he reminds me of Grey Davis.
I think Bush really is what he claims to be, which is a man of very deep convictions, and even charitable convictions. He will not say whatever it takes to get elected, but will do what he believes is right.
Today western civilzation is confonted by a deadly peril from the middle east. I trust Bush to confront this peril. I don't know what to believe when it comes to Kerry.
Well, if you want to be serious, it is rather amazing that the grammar correction was upmodded to +4 as informative or something.
The pot calls the kettle black :)
Don't try to prove that it is generosity, there is no generosity in captalism.
I'm not saying "it is right to send jobs to India." I'm not saying "it is wrong to send jobs to India."
I'm saying "The democrat party's position on sending jobs to India is inconsistent."
You know, it's just ridiculous that this stupid post is somehow rated informative and insightful. What's informative about it? Why is it insightful? It isn't. let's take it a bit at a time:
." Why not? Because this poster has no real basis, only claims and assertions. However, I think the poster gives himself away "You can't think beyond black and white." I think what the poster really means is "You actually are specific and think in a concrete manner, which I can't do because everytime I try I stop making sense even to myself."
That's because you don't understand the ideology. You have simply reduced it to the simplest form possible presumably because you are not capable of understanding more complex thought patterns.
This is simply a rude assertion. This post should be modded "flamebait," or "troll." There is no evidence provided. This sounds like something a Religious leader might ASSERT "Oh, you can't understand the glory of god, so just have faith. [Besides, if you don't you will be damned to hell, or by way of implication of the poster, if you don't agree with him you are stupid, and incapable of complex thought]"
Once again your inability to think beyond black and white has painted yourself into a corner.
I am not really going to go into it but here are the salient points.
Rude assertion again, then "I'm not going to go into it. .
1) We should help people all over the world if they need it to the best of our ability.
Another assertion. Why should we? What does "if they need it" mean? Perhaps it means we should kick out dictators, hmmm? Oh, I'll bet that isnt' what you mean. Why don't you tell us what it means to "help everyone to the best of our ability." I suspect you don't do this, now do you? Another feel good statement that really doesn't mean anything.
2) It's impossible to help everybody in the world because there is so much poverty and we really don't have enough money or willpower. Even if we really wanted to give a 100% effort to help the destitute of the world we would be fought tooth and nail by the republicans.
Well, you don't say what "help" means. Certainly, the US government could easily make sure the entire world had all almost all the different kinds of drugs (once you know the recipe, it is usually easy to make the drug), certainly there is enough food. Shelter? I suspect that we could probably figure out how to do that too. But, is this really helping? I think it is one of the most evil things to do, to make people dependent on handouts. Again, you really don't say what "help" means, but that's typical because you really don't have anything real to offer, by your own admission.
3) Charity begins at home. We really ought to tace care of our own problems first. We should devote MOST of our resources to making sure our own citizens are taken care of first.
What does this mean? Do you mean because I was born near someone else I have to take care of them before taking care of someone farther away? Why is that true? Frankly, I suspect I have a lot more in common with some of the hardworking mexicans than I have in common with you. This whole statement is designed to appeal based on patriotism, but again, it means simply nothing.
Why is "most" the bar? And why not "all?" Or even "almost all?" Why is "most" somehow better than "none?" You just make these statements that you and your fellow non-thinkers believe are so great, but they really have nothing inside of them.
You see, it's not that hard. Just compassion mixed with a little bit of realism. We still favor giving money to poor countries and helping them as much as we can but not at the expense of denying our own citizens.
Finally, we can agree on something. It isn't hard to say nothing, and to make feel good sweeping generalizations with no actual content behind them. Sweeping feel good religious statements.
But reall
I've heard it said that there's practically nothing that made it out of the Senate with John Kerry's name attached to it. Nothing.
Well, in my opinion practically nothing did come out of the Senate with Kerry's name on it.
There's so much of that crap that goes on by both sides it's disgusting.
We can certainly agree on this point. I don't know how to fix it. Perhaps we should stop making people feel guilty about not voting, and then only those who actually care enough will vote.
That's because you don't understand the ideology. You have simply reduced it to the simplest form possible presumably because you are not capable of understanding more complex thought patterns.
Actually, I think I understand it all right. It goes something like this:
People in India don't vote for us, people here do. People don't want to lose jobs, so we throw away our ideology for votes.
BTW I noticed that you said "A tenet of the democrats is to help the disadvantaged.". Doesn't it bother you that republicans don't even have that tenant. That they don't believe in helping the disadvantaged?
Actually, I don't think the democrats have it either. They are just pandering for votes. Well, Jimmy Carter might have cared, but I think he was the last one, and he had significant problems as president.
By the way, your post is empty. Full of platitudes, but with no real substance. I don't say that in a mean way, but in an objective way. You can take heart since a bunch of slashdotters ate your dog food and upmodded your post.
Well, I really hate to post to something that is off-topic, and on a post that is even more off-topic but:
.Bob Dole."
To late now, but for the next 4 elections, why don't we find amatures to send to Washington and the state legislatures?
It seems to me that the people we have been electing as president lately have been lightweights.
Look at Kerry's record. He is basically a NOP.
The democrat party's choice Gephardt failed.
Bush? That's a republican? Take away his religious stuff, and he sounds like a democrat with the largest expansion of government since Lyndon Johnson.
Clinton? Much loved by many and maligned by many, what did he do of any substance? Frankly, he was the beginning of the feel good presidents.
I love an old SJ mercury opinion (san jose paper), that said "And the GOP grunted and groaned, and the elephant popped out. .
Well, the truth is there aren't any good alternatives from the two major parties this year, and I don't think there have been really (inclusive) since George Sr.
Wow, I looked at factcheck.org, and I wouldn't consider any of the eleven bills factheck.org listed as being anything even remotely substantial.
In fact, I would say they are nops. My favorite:
S.J.Res.160: To renew "World Population Awareness Week" for 1991. (1991)
http://factcheck.org/article282.html
This is one area that always made me feel the democrats are ideologically conflicted.
A tenet of the democrats is to help the disadvantaged. India is a very poor country, and so it should be helped. What better way than to let good jobs go to India? The money they obtain will eventually help the entire, poor country.
But somehow, the Democrats have ended up on the other side of this argument. I don't understand how that is ideologically consistent. Because you are born in America, you are worthy of help, but if you are born in India, you are not?
Somehow, I feel if I continue on this line of reasoning, it will be down modded for something it is not, so I'll stop here and let others determine the logical conclusions, which I think are many.
Oh, there's probably nothing illegal about it. That's just innuendo and uncertainty pushed by the democrat party and repeated by the press as if it were news.
. php
http://cleveland.indymedia.org/news/2004/10/12700
You can say it is legal because it is email, but at the least it is predatory and unethical. Unfortunately, behavior such as this is probably going to create a whole new set of laws regulating the behavior.
On an airplane trip someone had accidentally left a business plan for their company in the magazine holder in the seat in front of me. It turns out this happened to be our competitor.
.orgs. It is a simple to make mistakes like that and has nothing to do with supidity.
Now, it's true that I was very tempted to look at the contents of it, but I decided not to for several reasons. First, it wasn't my propery. Second, I felt it was unethical, if not illegal. And third, I felt that I might actually hurt someone else who made a simple mistake.
I don't know what laws there are with regard to things like this, but it I'll bet if you receive mail in your postal mailbox addressed to someone else and you open it, you are violating a law.
Also, I don't see this as a stupid mistake, but rather a very easy mistake to make. For instance, there is a game you can play with variations that goes something like this: Ask someone to "spell step ten times", then ask "what do you do when you when you come to a green light? " Often the person will say "stop!" Just like in the email that person sent, which was sent to many
Personally, I think if there is any wrongdoing, it is in websites like georgewbush.org that troll for these kinds of mistakes. It bothers me that because of unethical behavior like this, the free web will increasingly become regulated.
Let's see. There is some reported voter registration fraud. Here is a case in Ohio were a registrar was paid with cocaine and registered "Dick Tracy" and "George Foreman":s sf?/base/iscri/109818543096130.xml
/ a/2004/10/17/MNGAB99QEA1.DTL
l icans-Deploy-Lawyers-for-Possible-Election-Battles .cfm
/
. php
http://www.cleveland.com/crime/plaindealer/index.
along with non-anecdotal evidence of potential fraud (higher incidence of registrations from incorrect address).
There is record voter registration in important states:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c
The democrats have supposedly hired many lawyers to monitor polls, etc.:
http://www.voanews.com/english/US-Democrats-Repub
Al Gore is telling blacks to "vote early" so their vote will count, presumably not like the last time:
"Early voting is a good idea," he said. "You want to give them plenty of time to count all the votes."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/24/gore.ap
In all, it seems like the making for a very big mess, and I think this election, with things so close, I for one would be suspicious and at least investigate.
One thing I find interesting about this story, is that there is no evidence of any actual wrongdoing, just innuendo, but perhaps this is just part of the democrat playbook, which is to allege claiming voter intimidation, whether it's true or not:
http://cleveland.indymedia.org/news/2004/10/12700
Another thing to consider is the followup costs.
Recently it seems like politics has become more and more positioning and fluff, and less and less issues. Maybe it was always that way, but I hate to think what the political debate would look like if the jerry springer crowd became a significant part of the electorate.
But how would those bribes have prevented the US from throwing its weight around and pushing to keep sanctions up?
Because Kerry said he would have worked with the security council members.
If sanctions were lifted, how likely would Saddam's efforts have been to procure most of the world's oil supply?
Well, it was his stated goal. Imagine if he tied French, Russians, Chinese into sweet oil deals, with promises of more. Imagine if he had a nuclear bomb, and other WMD. A person who can destroy a thing controls it.
So now the Bush agenda is nation building? I love how people make the argument that because of Bush, the Iraqis are free.
Let's see. Where do I say "For the iraqis?" I think it says "For the safety of the United States, and the rest of the Western World."
Honestly, the idea of "Yeah, the iraqis are better off," does fall a little flat with me too. but, when you think about the political void that both Saddam and OBL were going after in the middleeast, you begin to see how it's better for the U.S.
A not so well known company actually makes a floating platform that can launch rockets. It's heavily funded by Boeing, and advertises equatorial launches:
a ce_enterprise.shtml
http://www.sea-launch.com/
Another interesting note is that there are a lot of complaints on the net about how the US government, according to some at the behest of NASA to keep the shuttle viable, has stiffled commercial launches. Here is an interesting site discussing the affect of the laws:
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/barriers_to_sp
Count me in. Maybe James Sokolov would be willing to do some pro bono work after winning all of that money in mesotheleoma lawsuits.
My kids installed a bunch of spyware on my computers. I hope that means the spyware companies never had a legal right install. The spyware companies stole my cable link, my computing resources, my privacy, and much of my time trying to remove the nasty stuff.
One of those stupid programs left an lsp running after I removed the program, which caused DNS and DHCP to stop working. That computer, which happened to be my wife's, was just about worthless. And yes, my wife held me accountable for it! So let's add emotional distress to the list of crimes this heinous stuff causes.
You cannot fix social problems with legislation.
Ridiculous. DWI is a social problem, but it has been greatly curtailed due to stiff penalties. In fact, this is like saying nothing the legislature does can fix problems, since almost all of what they do is attempt to fix social problems.
Spam will never end as long as there will be fools who buy products advertised by unsolicited commercial e-mail. Period.
The article is about spyware, not about spam.
Anyway, you are wrong about this too. If the state were to execute people who send spam, they will stop it. I'm not saying to do this, though after spending 15 hours cleaning up spyware from my computers, I sometimes feel like the whole greedy, leechlike lot of them should be ground into hamburger and fed to the dogs.
On the one hand you have Bush who actually tried to do something about the political void in the middle east, by establishing in the region a democracy in a relatively rich country. All of western civilization relies on the middle east for the lifeblood of industry: oil, so you can't let Saddam have his way. As we know now, he was unravelling the security council with bribery.
On the other hand, you have a guy, Kerry, who would have gone the route of the inspecters, and continued to let Saddam divide the security council by bribing french and russian officials. An iraq without sactions would be free to pursue Saddam's goal of a pan arab state controlling most of the world's oil supply.
Two leaders have vied for control of politically vaccuous middle east, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Ladin. Bush has removed one, severely curtailed the abilities of another, and has put in place the seeds for politically strong middle eastern governments, which will stablize the region, keep it competetive, and so prevent it from threatening Western Civilization thirty or fourty years from now.
Let's have a study and find out if any of the Kerry supporters have that world view.
The problem is the uneducated electorate, not the policy. The policy is "Western civilization depends on oil. Cut the oil, and you kill western civilization. Make the savage world over there more civilized, by introducting Western Ideals."
Terrorists had the money, the training, and the reason because of the enormous power associated with the oil in that region of the world and because of Western knowhow. Remove the oil, remove that value, and *poof*, the problem goes away. There is nothing to fight for. Don't believe for a second that its about "a way of life going away," what arrogance.
Women in afghanistan are voting given the freedom to because they prefer wearing burkas? "I want to wear a burka, they told me if I go to the polls they will kill me: better go to the polls." Maybe the crazies believe that, much the same way they look at a turtle and watch it die, flipped on its back. "Oh, it's natural." What dreck.
Try to explain that Oil gives the Santa Cruz Eco Facists the power to even have a voice, and they will go ballistic, along with the brain dead media. "Biomass, Solar Power, Corn, anything but nuclear (ironically) and evil oil". You simply can't tell the truth about the interdependency, because somehow it has become evil.
Let's see a similar poll. Kerry wants a bunch of new programs, harping in the meantime about the deficit. Until Kerry can show, really show, how all of these new government programs, including sending more troops to iraq, can be done by rolling back 89 Billin in taxes on those who make > 200K, I'm going to say this is simply partisan sniping.
Politics has become nothing more than a football game, and slashdot readers have been recruited as its fans, thinking, arrogantly, they have the slightest clue, when they are merely parrots admiring the vomit they've reguritaged on their feathers.
So if I understand the gist of this, the idea is that programmers will be replaced because the computers/software we make can program themselves as well as we can. Insofar as all the fun things to think about, genetic algorithms, neural nets, blah blah, you still need the programmer. If you don't, I say the following happens pretty quickly:
1. Computers do all the mental labor out there.
If they can do this how far is it until
2. They can do all the manual labor out there
And then of course from this you have
3. Computers replicate themselves.
Then it won't be just programmers who are obsoleted, programmers will have obsoleted the human race.
I'll wait until computers obsolete something as simple as crop picking before I get too scared.