This is a much lower-tech solution, although I could see where it would be very useful.
Apparently the guy who patented this made a few bucks off of the idea, which he supposedly came up with while stoned. Or so says a friend of mine who knew the guy.
What, my freedom to get on an airplane without having to take my shoes off?
Some things done recently (Patriot Act, et al) have the potential to threaten civil liberties... IF ABUSED.
Can you show me where this has happened? Can you point to one instance where civil liberties have been actually curtailed? I'm really tired of this argument because no one seems to be able to point to something concrete. It seems as baseless as the fear-mongering about the draft.
I don't know who you're arguing with, because I support what we're doing in Iraq. Everyone complains that Iraq was a mistake, but no one thinks Saddam should have been left in power. Now Kerry has said (position #458) that if he'd been President, Saddam might not now be in power. I think voting for Kerry is a huge mistake from both national security and domestic policy. He would return us to the days of Jimmy Carter. Having said that though, I do believe he is earnest in wanting to defend America.
It may not have been the terrorist attack that swayed the election from one side to the other, but the winner (the Socialists, IIRC) had campaigned that they would pull out of Iraq. They might have won anyway from what I understand.
Nevertheless, I think the implied cause and effect has done damage.
Oh, great, now the animal rights nuts are complaining about P2P... what next?
p.s. Get used to the word... we'll be using it pretty commonly in another 5 - 10 years. The fact that I have more than a terabyte of data stored in my house would have been inconceivable to me a few years ago, even if most of it is old MST3K and Simpsons episodes, oh and a bazillion backups of work.
bin Laben, if it is really him, seems to be trying to set terms for ending the attacks against the U.S. This is irrelevant. At this point, we have no reason to consider anything but his and al Qaeda's total destruction. There is no other safe way to treat enemies so completely without honor. I would suggest that this is how both President Bush and Senator Kerry see it, too.
From the CNN article:
Bush told reporters as he was boarding Air Force One for Columbus, Ohio, "Americans will not be intimidated or influenced by an enemy of our country. I'm sure Senator Kerry agrees with this.... We are at war with these terrorists, and I am confident we will prevail."
Kerry told reporters in West Palm Beach, Florida: "Let me make it clear -- crystal clear: as Americans, we are absolutely united in our determination to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden and the terrorists."
He added: "They are barbarians. And I will stop at absolutely nothing to hunt down, capture or kill the terrorists wherever they are, whatever it takes. Period."
The terrorists will not scare the United States as it did Spain, the Phillippines and other countries. I do not believe Kerry would be as effective at this as Bush, but I do believe he will pursue and destroy al Qaeda should he become our President. Anything else sets the precedence to begin the destruction of America.
I believe that all Americans should unite behind our President, whoever he is in January, to continue and win this war for our security and the security of free people everywhere.
Indeed- the *Doctorine* of papal infallibility is about spiritual matters. But a lot of people- catholics and otherwise- seem to think that the pope does no wrong. Well, plenty of catholics believe that, whilst the "otherwise" believes that all catholics have to believe that.
This quote did not appear in the post I responded to. However, I will gladly take you at your word. What you did say was this:
though not the kind of Catholic who really believes in papal infallibility, most especially in non-spiritual matters...
which is extremely unclear as to what you think the notion of infallibility is supposed to be.
I'm glad you are not out to get anyone. I'm a little sensitive in this regard because there is a lot of bigotry out there, being fueled by the vast amount of disinformation posing as scholarly works. A lot of this comes from people claiming to be Catholic, as if this gives their criticism some kind of legitimacy in and of itself. In fact, the most virulent critics of Catholicism are often Catholics themselves, and these people are often as misinformed or willfully ignorant as anyone else.
In any event, I apologize if I prejudged you incorrectly. As a supporter of both the Catholic Church (completely) and President Bush (mostly), and even an occasional defender of Microsoft (not often though), I am usually on the defensive in forums such as this. While I acknowledge that many people in the Church up to and including Popes were and are sometimes at fault, even to the point of being evil, it is also easy to show that much of the popular critical "mythology" of the Church is exaggerated or outright false.
If you read these books with a mind towards that, then there is complaint I have to offer.
p.s. And, yes, I do see the irony of criticising something on the Web with something else on the Web, but there are plenty of reputable sources of information.
Ah, so being "raised Catholic" gives credibility when criticizing the Pope. This is nonsense. The Pope repeatedly made firm and unequivocal condemnations of what Hitler was doing well before the war even started. For starters, you might want to read this.
There's no secret and no surprise in the fact that certain people with an anti-Catholic agenda will smear the Chruch every chance they can get. Just because someone publishes a book doesn't make it true. If you actually go back and look what was going on at the time and what was being saif about the Pope at the time, no one even considered that the Pope was somehow "turning a blind eye" to Hitler. It was only decades later that people with other agendas started to try to tarnish Pius's image.
Furthermore, I suggest you read up on Papal infallibility, since you (or the author, it's not clear from your sentence) have no idea what you're talking about. There have been books written that dispute the Holocaust even happened. Do you believe them too?
Well, there's plenty of good ways to respond to stupid comments without stooping to their level. Besides, I took the first post as a joke, not a slam. Oh, well.
OK, that's fair. I've just seen too many people who claim that Pope Pius did nothing or even worse. No one is perfect, and there's no doubt that Catholics have exercised anti-Semitism, but when it came to the Holocaust the Pope did a lot, especially given the fact that the Axis could have rolled tanks into the Vatican at any time. I've read that the head Rabbi in Rome converted and took the Christian name Eugenio as a result of what the Pope did.
Thanks for the reference. You saved me the effort.
You know, you had a good post until you indicted the Catholic Church completely out of the blue. By every account, the Catholic Church and particularly the Pope were responsible for saving hundreds of thousands of Jewish lives.
Don't buy the spin, read unbiased history.
Isn't it funny how all this bad stuff about the Church didn't come out until several decades later? That's because the people there at the time knew the truth.
There are also folks who say the Holocaust never happened. Do you believe them too?
I hope you're not suggesting that Bush & Cheny have been somehow above the frey.
No, but Kerry really seems desperate to me. Not meant to be a partisan comment.
Ms. Cheney's going to go down in history for saying that referring to an outed lesbian as such on a question about homosexuality is a tawdry political trick.
It is, even a lot of Kerry supporters cringed at that one. And I'll tell you why I think so... for a reason no one seems to talk about.
Kerry said "If you ask Mary Cheney... I'd think she'd tell you..." He's putting words in her mouth. Even if that's what she'd say, I find it reprehensible to speak for someone else like that. Now if he quoted her and had said, "Mary Cheney said..." then I wouldn't have had a problem with it, except for the fact that he had clearly brought it up to make the right wing nuts think badly of Cheney... he couldn't even say the word "lesbian" without looking painfully embarrassed. There are plenty of famous gay people he could have mentioned that would have been completely neutral in the context.
To say nothing of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" (which is more properly referred to as "the republican party and supporters") and theiy dynamic campaign to misquote and distort the image of the frontrunner Democrat for the past two and a half years.
Perhaps, but Kerry's own words have done most of the damage. And while the Republicans and their supporters may be doing that, they have the disadvantage of not having the New York Times and CBS, who are not even pretending to be impartial any more. As far as Kerry goes, I've heard radio shows run fictitious debates of Kerry against himself using his own words, and more seriously if you look at what he was saying a few years ago, it's completely opposite to what he's saying now. He insists on more coopoeration from allies with Iraq, but then criticizes Bush for multilateral talks with North Korea (in favor of bilateral talks). That's schizophrenic if you ask me. It's so obvious he takes a stance based on whatever politically expedient at the moment. Most of his campaign was simply contradicting whatever Bush was saying. And most of his "plans" seem to consist of painting the most rosy outcome possible and saying he would achieve that. It's funny how many times he invoked Reagan in the debates since he was one of Reagan's biggest political foes. And there's no way you can justify "It would be irresponsible to vote against..." and then vote against it a few weeks later to make some kind of protest against how the funds were being raised, when the end result was exactly what he said was the wrong thing to do.
Well, the per-song EQ sounds nice, but all the rest is just noise. I haven't looked at iTunes in a while, but they didn't even have the more popular groups I listen to. Besides, I still want to be able to buy a CD and rip it. Paying for bits doesn't feel like I own anything (of course I realize I don't either way).
Besides a PDA can do all those other things just fine, and I didn't pay the Apple tax.
My conclusion: Kids vote for who their parents talk about voting for. That's why it's always been right.
Kerry should have gotten those weasely-smart Clintonians to run everything.
He did, but by then it was too late. He seems to have done the same thing Bob Dole did, which was just kinda hang out and say, "Hey, the President is a jerk and I'm not him. Vote for me." Dole didn't win. When Bush's numbers refused to go down, even after people like the NYT and CBS stopped even pretending they were impartial in the matter*, Kerry started to panic and started launching random attacks at anything that moved, apparently using his wife and Edwards' wife to throw some more ad hominem slams into the fire, either that or those women are almost unprecendently petty and immature. The Democrats let the Americans down by running a campaign to beat Bush rather than a campaign to elect their candidate. I guess since early polls showed Bush losing to an unnamed Democrat, they decided that was the way to go. Regardless, his campaign has become increasingly panicked in the last few weeks until he's grasping at straws like accusing the President of losing hundreds of tons of explosives that probably weren't even there. And slamming Cheney for getting a flu shot. How sad is that?
Fine by me. I support Bush.
*Newsweek suggests media slant is reponsible for 15 points going to Kerry.
Slashdot Mirror
Even in this modern world, there are still plenty of opportunities to create new and useful products.
I love the umbrella concept... it's so obvious.
and a spokeswoman has said it may never happen at all because of "legal and management concerns"."
Maybe they looked at their own argument and realized it even looked stupid to them.
http://www.scratchlessdisc.com/
This is a much lower-tech solution, although I could see where it would be very useful.
Apparently the guy who patented this made a few bucks off of the idea, which he supposedly came up with while stoned. Or so says a friend of mine who knew the guy.
Did they find a non-functional baby and dump the ROMs?
That we shouldn't have removed him. I was just trying to decide if you are an idiot, or just opposed to the war.
You seem to be someone who was just opposed to the war.
1380 and that was with a 780. We don't need no steenkeeng English.
And this was before they dumbed it down.
By that measure I should be emperor of the world.
(I don't know if the 1320 is wrong or the 690... it could be a tie).
-1 Pointless.
Should we put him back?
What, my freedom to get on an airplane without having to take my shoes off?
Some things done recently (Patriot Act, et al) have the potential to threaten civil liberties... IF ABUSED.
Can you show me where this has happened? Can you point to one instance where civil liberties have been actually curtailed? I'm really tired of this argument because no one seems to be able to point to something concrete. It seems as baseless as the fear-mongering about the draft.
I don't know who you're arguing with, because I support what we're doing in Iraq. Everyone complains that Iraq was a mistake, but no one thinks Saddam should have been left in power. Now Kerry has said (position #458) that if he'd been President, Saddam might not now be in power. I think voting for Kerry is a huge mistake from both national security and domestic policy. He would return us to the days of Jimmy Carter. Having said that though, I do believe he is earnest in wanting to defend America.
The parent modded as a troll? What, is it Retard Day in Moderatorland? Yeesh!
Now, THIS is a troll.
I have to vote for party x otherwise it would send the wrong message?
I never said that. You vote for the right candidate.
It may not have been the terrorist attack that swayed the election from one side to the other, but the winner (the Socialists, IIRC) had campaigned that they would pull out of Iraq. They might have won anyway from what I understand.
Nevertheless, I think the implied cause and effect has done damage.
Oh, great, now the animal rights nuts are complaining about P2P... what next?
p.s. Get used to the word... we'll be using it pretty commonly in another 5 - 10 years. The fact that I have more than a terabyte of data stored in my house would have been inconceivable to me a few years ago, even if most of it is old MST3K and Simpsons episodes, oh and a bazillion backups of work.
From the CNN article:
The terrorists will not scare the United States as it did Spain, the Phillippines and other countries. I do not believe Kerry would be as effective at this as Bush, but I do believe he will pursue and destroy al Qaeda should he become our President. Anything else sets the precedence to begin the destruction of America.
I believe that all Americans should unite behind our President, whoever he is in January, to continue and win this war for our security and the security of free people everywhere.
Indeed- the *Doctorine* of papal infallibility is about spiritual matters. But a lot of people- catholics and otherwise- seem to think that the pope does no wrong. Well, plenty of catholics believe that, whilst the "otherwise" believes that all catholics have to believe that.
This quote did not appear in the post I responded to. However, I will gladly take you at your word. What you did say was this:
though not the kind of Catholic who really believes in papal infallibility, most especially in non-spiritual matters...
which is extremely unclear as to what you think the notion of infallibility is supposed to be.
I'm glad you are not out to get anyone. I'm a little sensitive in this regard because there is a lot of bigotry out there, being fueled by the vast amount of disinformation posing as scholarly works. A lot of this comes from people claiming to be Catholic, as if this gives their criticism some kind of legitimacy in and of itself. In fact, the most virulent critics of Catholicism are often Catholics themselves, and these people are often as misinformed or willfully ignorant as anyone else.
In any event, I apologize if I prejudged you incorrectly. As a supporter of both the Catholic Church (completely) and President Bush (mostly), and even an occasional defender of Microsoft (not often though), I am usually on the defensive in forums such as this. While I acknowledge that many people in the Church up to and including Popes were and are sometimes at fault, even to the point of being evil, it is also easy to show that much of the popular critical "mythology" of the Church is exaggerated or outright false.
If you read these books with a mind towards that, then there is complaint I have to offer.
p.s. And, yes, I do see the irony of criticising something on the Web with something else on the Web, but there are plenty of reputable sources of information.
Ah, so being "raised Catholic" gives credibility when criticizing the Pope. This is nonsense. The Pope repeatedly made firm and unequivocal condemnations of what Hitler was doing well before the war even started. For starters, you might want to read this.
There's no secret and no surprise in the fact that certain people with an anti-Catholic agenda will smear the Chruch every chance they can get. Just because someone publishes a book doesn't make it true. If you actually go back and look what was going on at the time and what was being saif about the Pope at the time, no one even considered that the Pope was somehow "turning a blind eye" to Hitler. It was only decades later that people with other agendas started to try to tarnish Pius's image.
Furthermore, I suggest you read up on Papal infallibility, since you (or the author, it's not clear from your sentence) have no idea what you're talking about. There have been books written that dispute the Holocaust even happened. Do you believe them too?
Well, there's plenty of good ways to respond to stupid comments without stooping to their level. Besides, I took the first post as a joke, not a slam. Oh, well.
Go back under your bridge, troll. When lacking real criticism, unintelligent people resort to ad hominem attacks.
In this case, "It takes one to know one." might actually be appropriate.
OK, that's fair. I've just seen too many people who claim that Pope Pius did nothing or even worse. No one is perfect, and there's no doubt that Catholics have exercised anti-Semitism, but when it came to the Holocaust the Pope did a lot, especially given the fact that the Axis could have rolled tanks into the Vatican at any time. I've read that the head Rabbi in Rome converted and took the Christian name Eugenio as a result of what the Pope did.
Thanks for the reference. You saved me the effort.
You know, you had a good post until you indicted the Catholic Church completely out of the blue. By every account, the Catholic Church and particularly the Pope were responsible for saving hundreds of thousands of Jewish lives.
Don't buy the spin, read unbiased history.
Isn't it funny how all this bad stuff about the Church didn't come out until several decades later? That's because the people there at the time knew the truth.
There are also folks who say the Holocaust never happened. Do you believe them too?
I hope you're not suggesting that Bush & Cheny have been somehow above the frey.
No, but Kerry really seems desperate to me. Not meant to be a partisan comment.
Ms. Cheney's going to go down in history for saying that referring to an outed lesbian as such on a question about homosexuality is a tawdry political trick.
It is, even a lot of Kerry supporters cringed at that one. And I'll tell you why I think so... for a reason no one seems to talk about.
Kerry said "If you ask Mary Cheney... I'd think she'd tell you..." He's putting words in her mouth. Even if that's what she'd say, I find it reprehensible to speak for someone else like that. Now if he quoted her and had said, "Mary Cheney said..." then I wouldn't have had a problem with it, except for the fact that he had clearly brought it up to make the right wing nuts think badly of Cheney... he couldn't even say the word "lesbian" without looking painfully embarrassed. There are plenty of famous gay people he could have mentioned that would have been completely neutral in the context.
To say nothing of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" (which is more properly referred to as "the republican party and supporters") and theiy dynamic campaign to misquote and distort the image of the frontrunner Democrat for the past two and a half years.
Perhaps, but Kerry's own words have done most of the damage. And while the Republicans and their supporters may be doing that, they have the disadvantage of not having the New York Times and CBS, who are not even pretending to be impartial any more. As far as Kerry goes, I've heard radio shows run fictitious debates of Kerry against himself using his own words, and more seriously if you look at what he was saying a few years ago, it's completely opposite to what he's saying now. He insists on more coopoeration from allies with Iraq, but then criticizes Bush for multilateral talks with North Korea (in favor of bilateral talks). That's schizophrenic if you ask me. It's so obvious he takes a stance based on whatever politically expedient at the moment. Most of his campaign was simply contradicting whatever Bush was saying.
And most of his "plans" seem to consist of painting the most rosy outcome possible and saying he would achieve that. It's funny how many times he invoked Reagan in the debates since he was one of Reagan's biggest political foes. And there's no way you can justify "It would be irresponsible to vote against..." and then vote against it a few weeks later to make some kind of protest against how the funds were being raised, when the end result was exactly what he said was the wrong thing to do.
Well, the per-song EQ sounds nice, but all the rest is just noise. I haven't looked at iTunes in a while, but they didn't even have the more popular groups I listen to. Besides, I still want to be able to buy a CD and rip it. Paying for bits doesn't feel like I own anything (of course I realize I don't either way).
Besides a PDA can do all those other things just fine, and I didn't pay the Apple tax.
Quake is ported to a TI-83.
I'd criticize this for being a pointless and ridiculous project, but I'm a huge believer in the motto, "Because I can."
My conclusion: kids are stupid
My conclusion: Kids vote for who their parents talk about voting for. That's why it's always been right.
Kerry should have gotten those weasely-smart Clintonians to run everything.
He did, but by then it was too late. He seems to have done the same thing Bob Dole did, which was just kinda hang out and say, "Hey, the President is a jerk and I'm not him. Vote for me." Dole didn't win. When Bush's numbers refused to go down, even after people like the NYT and CBS stopped even pretending they were impartial in the matter*, Kerry started to panic and started launching random attacks at anything that moved, apparently using his wife and Edwards' wife to throw some more ad hominem slams into the fire, either that or those women are almost unprecendently petty and immature. The Democrats let the Americans down by running a campaign to beat Bush rather than a campaign to elect their candidate. I guess since early polls showed Bush losing to an unnamed Democrat, they decided that was the way to go. Regardless, his campaign has become increasingly panicked in the last few weeks until he's grasping at straws like accusing the President of losing hundreds of tons of explosives that probably weren't even there. And slamming Cheney for getting a flu shot. How sad is that?
Fine by me. I support Bush.
*Newsweek suggests media slant is reponsible for 15 points going to Kerry.
Maybe they were just trying even up the sizes.