I have yet to see an idea of Gore's (even back in the 1980s, when he was in Congress) that did not have a glimmer or of pure politics. Those who have lived in Tennessee know that he is an opportunist, and will do or say whatever is necessary to achieve what he wants, and I mean anything. Yes, I am willing to bet the whole attitude of the campaign page is nothing more than an attempt to cozy up to a segment of the population, most noteably (and likely) the 18-30 age group, mainly because that is the largest untapped age group, where no one party dominates. Now, i ask you, do you want someone as you leader whose goals are nearly, if not always, politically motivated for self-promotion? Or, knowing that most politicans do this, one who makes such thinly-veiled attempts at it? I for one, do not. I, unfortunately, cannot bring myself to trust this man, even though I have never met; something just reeks...
Giving Clinton and Gore credit for making "Internet" a buzzword is like giving them credit for the upturn and subsequent bull market that started in January of 1993, while Bush was still in office. Individuals do not shape these things... the Internet took off in 1994 (am i right here) when wide-spread access to the WWW became possible (I would also like to remind you of the paltry number of web sites back in 1993/1994, and the near non-existence of them in 1992). These men had nothing to do with it. A prospering economy gave more people access to computers, and some willing investors started up ISP's, and the rest took over... I cannot agree with you on giving them credit for that...
>nullspace said: Al Gore is doing nothing more than leeching off of every mainstream idea that he can get a hold of in the hope of trying to win over niave voters who believe everything he is shoveling. I would like to believe that most of America sees right through this and does not vote for him come election time.
Now you see why the majority of Tennesseans do not like him. He, just like his father before him, will do whatever it takes to get elected. Politics is his life, and, unlike most, he is good at it... which is what scares me most, not knowing if he is posing for the polls and the votes, or if he actually means these things...
As for viable canidates, well, it is still only April of '99... I'll wait a bit before I become dishearten...
Gotta agree with you on the internal computer bit; I would be hestitant about it... early adopter does not have my name on it. Instead, why not try to find the means to unlock and use that substantial amount that is already there. I mean, if we can do the activities and such that all of us do, and only use 10-15% of the brain, imagine the computational capacity if just 50% was used. Or even higher... Then, we might scoff at internal computers, knowing that it was a foolish I idea for the lazy, but then, I ramble...
>They don't realize that this is something we love. I personally say to myself that I get to go to work, rather than I have to go to work.
Heh... work for me consists of a bunch NT servers I am responsible for maintaining; I don't get to play with the 3 AIX machines =( So often I find myself wanting to stay home and tinker with Linux (I am relatively new to it, first installed in December 98), poking through it, learning it (partly in hopes to get to work with the AIX servers at work)... so, I guess until I get something else to do than pray over NT servers for deliverance from the "Mighty Blue Screen of Death"(c), I guess I'll want to stay home more than go to work.
As for the rest of you post... right on! I mean, I can say the same about people who watch the NASCAR races... after all, how many times can you watch a mid-sized car you'll never own go around in circles (or oval, or whatever the track configuartion is)? I can't stand it for 2 laps (guess I got a short attention span with that).
Let us also not forget that the first menu-driven interface (the father of the modern GUI) was created by a group of Air Force programmers who were told "it couldn't be done". Two of them, in fact, join Xerox when their service term was up, and help lead the programming for that GUI.
>Xerox invented the concept (right down to the mouse)
Just want to correct you here about the mouse; it was actually designed and constructed by someone at Stanford (someone help with the name, I'm drawing a blank) back in the late 1960s. The same guy is also credited with a whole slew of things generally believed to be created by others (like the like graphical Internet browser... only his ran on ARPANet in the '70s). I cannot remember a lot about his inventions (I only know a little about him); perhaps someone could help us with this and give credit where credit is due...
jaraxle wrote: >I don't think so... from what I read, it sounds like they will allow him to register any domain name that does NOT contain Theos in it at all... therefore theos.net and theos.org are out. that's bullsh*t if you ask me, but what do I know?
Oh... how gracious of them... you know, "allowing" someone to register a different domain name from the one they have owned for several years sounds like someone in marketing hasn't quite thought this one through...
Umm... appearently (to be nit-picky) you confuse the pilgrims with the Puritans. The pilgrim truely did exercise religious freedom (granted they were all Chrisitians). The Puritans, when they arrived in Massachusettes in the late 1620s - early 1630s, they forced everyone to conform with their brand of Christianity, they forced down peoples throats...
If you are going to slam someone, slam the right one...
Craw wrote: >Dred Scott was in 1857 and that decision also declared that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. That part of the Dred Scott Decision was critical, IMHO. The Kansas-Nebraska Act came a few year earlier (also related to the Missouri Compromise).
You're right; I got the date wrong there. I guess I got some dates messed up, something (I think of which ones it would be). Anyways, I think it had been agreed that that particular case and its decision would have removed slavery as a reason for secession, for it essentially allowed slavery anywhere. If anything, it mainly infuriated the abolitionists. But the Southerns remained unconcerned; I could not find a single mention of the case after its decision in 1857 in Thomas Chiles Perrin or Francis McCall's diaries last night (I am not saying that I may not have missed it, although that is unlikely).
Craw continued with: >Lincoln declared that the secession of the southern states was "illegal" (I can't remember the actual legal aspects). Hence, there was no actual breakup of the US and the conflict was a civil war. Of course the two sides greatly disagreed over this legal wrangling, and on Lincoln's decision to maintain occupancy of southern forts (like Sumter).
Well, there was a break-up; a new government was formed, ALL forts in the South (at least in the states that had seceeded) except for Sumter had been abandoned; Lincoln did want to maintain that one fort in Charleston, I think to maintain some military presence (and an eye on Southern trade, as Charleston was the main Southern port on the Atlantic), although I could very well be wrong on this, as I am speaking from memory, and I do not have the source in front of me. As for the legal aspects, there were no laws say you could not leave the Union, and in the Constitution, as it was constructed, there was nothing to prevent them. In fact, the 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Nowhere in the Constitution is removal from the Union mentioned, and it was generally assumed, by North and South, that if you cames of free-will, then you may leave. Lincoln was merely pulling a political move to maintain status quo because he feared a war would, if not now, eventually erupt; Lincoln was an excellent politican and statesman... he understood that he needed to get the South back in the Union to maintain the financial stability of the nation. The vast majority of statemen from the North recognized the fact that the Southern states were no longer part of the Union; if they were, why did they have to be readmitted after the war? I also would like to point out that the term "Civil War was not applied to it until several years after the war by a newspaperman for a New York newpaper (the Times? I'm not sure... need to check that out).
Craw then proceeds to say: >IMHO, the War Between the States was the result of political and economic conflicts between the north and the south. The issue of slavery was inherent in both issues. However, the war did not start with the northern mantra of "Let's free the slaves." Most people, back then, were not that enlighten.
Perhaps I understated the importance of slavery in an effort to show the importance of states' rights in this struggle; I think you said it best.
And as far as the John Brown movie, yeah, RMS would work well...
Server is down at work, and tis 5:00pm... gonna be a little later than 6 when the repost rolls along, as I am liable to not get hom until later... I promise, however, it will be online before I am in bed (bedtime = 12-3AM)... look for it before midnight, though; I wanna get to bed early tonight...
And I'll try to wirte in complete sentences this time... =)
Whoops... sorry... wasn't trying to be inflammatory. I was merely trying to state the religious setting of my native region; the prior posts in no way reflect my personal religious beliefs (which I will keep out of this matter). Sorry I came across that way... Your right, though; to make ensure my posts are better worded.
I feel perhaps my aim at sarcasm missed the mark, in fact, I think I hit the bystanders...
I was not trying to say that the library did not serve the people by providing both information and methods of entertainment; they do accomplish both of these. I was trying, perhaps too caustically, to point out that sole reliance on a library, and hence the internet, is neither wise nor prudent; it is a tool, and is what you make of it, as you eloquently showed to us. Your right... I just overstepped the bounds of what I was trying to point out... hmmm... guess that means I need to work on the sarcasm bit...
Yes I can respond to this; in fact, the title graces my library at home... I just so ask that you wait until 6pm est, so I can get there, tell you the title, author, publication date, and even cite the page for you, rather than doing piece posting until then. I also have family diaries and bibles, which, btw, count as legal documents all stating the same. Two of the men whom I have the diaries for are Thomas Chiles Perrin, a prominent South Carolina statesman, and his son George Clopton Perrin. Additionally, Seaborn Howard Wade and Francis McCall, statesmen in Georgia, have record much the same in their own diaries. All of these books are available in the archives of their respective states, and I believe (am not sure, though) that a copy of Thomas Perrin's is in the Library of Congress. As for the quote by Nathan Bedford Forrest, check his memoirs and war diaries, specifically the time period after the battle of Chickamauga (ugh... please excuse the spelling). Again, when I return home I can give you a more specific citation, like the date in the diaries. If you want more specific data, let me go home and come through my stuff (btw my family has kept extensive documentation on this since we are from south Carolina and Georgia).
I also have to point to Klink's reply: why would the Southerns start a war over an issue that you state they had won? Forgetting that matter, why would leave the Union over a matter that they would not mention in any of the Ordinances of Secession?
I feel, for some reason, the need to state that, no, I do not believe that slavery was right, regardless of the reason. I do feel that more could have been done to rectify that and the larger reasons that precipitated that War Between the States (it not was a civil war... they were NOT members of the Union, and had already been recognized as such by President Buchanan; Lincoln himself didn't even use that term... but then, that's just nit-picking), and that it was through faults on both sides that more was not done.
I also remind you that the Dred Scott case had been resolved in 1854; the intervening six years saw it largely put behind them. And don't even get me started on Uncle Tom's Cabin...
Something else; check the newspapers, North and South, for the headlines during late 1860 - June 1861. And I mean major newspapers, not the political ones like the sundry of newspapers produced by William Garrison and Co. (aka The Abolitionist, etc.). I think you will be surprised by what you see.
Your attempt at correcting Jerrod's admittedly shakey understanding of US History is admirable (read the other posts for that information), you information, especially of the principles where incorrect.
Of 80% will get the most casulties; they have 60% more of the population than 20% (duh...). If you look at a percentage of each population, you will find that of the population without slaves, only 65% of them fought, while 63% of slave-owners fought.
And, you premise of why they fought is totally inaccurate. Slavery wasn't even an issue in 1861; although the revisionists would have you think otherwise, it was really a minor, to-be-dealt-with-after-the-others issue. Both sides, North and South, treated it as such, mainly because they knew when the others issues were resolved, this would resolved with it (one of the issues being the reformation of the Southern agarian economy). No, the war was fought over the states rights; many of them believe they were being infringed upon by the federal government, the federal government would not back down, saying as the majority (the Northern states) backed the more centralized government.
Additionally, I ask you this: would 75,000 free blacks sign up, voluntarily, to defend slavery? No... they wouldn't. And yet 75,000 black Southerns, ALL FREE MEN, signed up in 1861-1865 and fought in regiments along side the white regiments, and many served with distinction. In fact, Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest (know founding, then dissolving the Ku Klux Klan and his previous life as a slave trader) said that the black company that fought under him were the best fighters had seen, and "I trust them more than any white man under my command." Hmmm... doesn't sound like a slavery issue to me...
Please pardon the rant; I just wanted to set the record straight.
That is what I thought you might say. I guess, to appease the paying customers, perhaps an option for sites pertaining to the major religions for filtering based on there beliefs might be effective, but overall it would be awfully cumbersome (not trying to squash the littles guys their:)
I know not where you live, Jaime, but here in the South, the word "mormon" is almost as bad as naming The Dark Prince... a lot of the Christian element here in the South do not view the Mormon church as a denomination of Christianity, but rather a perversion of it. I suppose that the private religious schools (which also happen to abound here) would want that site blocked. If this still doesn't make since, then perhaps an explanation of the differences need to made, but I will only do that if necessary.
Yeah, and of course we all know the Internet is THE place for medical advice and counseling, especially when we have free Health Clinics in most everyplace there is a library (i.e. - Department of Health). And of course the doctors there could possibly know how to treat disease, or counsel an abuse victim. Yes, anonymity is good, but relying on the internet in cases like this, where your health is on the line, is not practice common sense.
Could you maybe elaborate on how the Bible is offensive? I am not disagreeing, or trying to point you elsewhere, I just think that maybe filters, when packaged and sold, might need definitions of offensive. Like, lewd (religion doesn't matter here in most cases), openly vouching violence against others (religion could matter), etc. Maybe, by elaborating the reasons sites are chosen would help illuminate what kind of filters work, and may even assist in individuals in picking one (for instance, you could have a Christian filter and a Muslim filter, to help shelter the kids).
The ACLU can bitch and moan all they want, and nothing can be done about it; it is a commercial product, not government-funded nor -developed, and thus it is completely out of the realm of the ACLU since use is voluntary. Sure they can complain, or even sue, but, if the judge is impartial, they wouldn't get anywhere.
I was also pleasantly surprised to the articles posted on their webpage that detracted from their product; kind of unusual for a commercial vendor to do as such.
And as far as perfect filters, I'll have to agree with Lurking Grue; it would be nigh unto impossible to get the "perfect" filter... a flexible one is perhaps the best we can hope for, and it may actually be what we want.
There are two specialized versions out there: DLD and Stampede, plus SuSE did, on March 20th at CeBIT in Europe, hand out version 6.1 Beta for Alpha, with an intended commercial release in May. Additionally, all it takes for kernel support is a simple kernel recompilation, as described in the appropriate HOWTOs. This has been in effect since 2.1.xxx. Versions 2.2.0 and 2.2.1 do not require patches for it to work, although 2.2.2 does. Additionally, several of the later 2.0.xx kernels will work on an Alpha with the appropriate patch.
Goto http://www.alphalinux.org for more information
Already being researched
on
Wearable PCs
·
· Score: 1
Been trying to find the link... maybe someone else can help...
Appearantly last year at Emory University in Georgia researchers were able to insert a brain implant in to the skulls of several quadrapalegics (no spelling flames, please) that allowed them control over a mouse and keyboard. Although, depending on chemical balances, the device didn't always work, it was useful in the majority of attempts. I will continue to look for it; I first heard it on NPR on the way to work one morning. If anyone else knows what I am talking about and knows the link, please, post it.
Slashdot Mirror
I did, today, but I won't get to play with it until after work... I might leave early, though... =)
-G.
I have yet to see an idea of Gore's (even back in the 1980s, when he was in Congress) that did not have a glimmer or of pure politics. Those who have lived in Tennessee know that he is an opportunist, and will do or say whatever is necessary to achieve what he wants, and I mean anything. Yes, I am willing to bet the whole attitude of the campaign page is nothing more than an attempt to cozy up to a segment of the population, most noteably (and likely) the 18-30 age group, mainly because that is the largest untapped age group, where no one party dominates. Now, i ask you, do you want someone as you leader whose goals are nearly, if not always, politically motivated for self-promotion? Or, knowing that most politicans do this, one who makes such thinly-veiled attempts at it? I for one, do not. I, unfortunately, cannot bring myself to trust this man, even though I have never met; something just reeks...
Giving Clinton and Gore credit for making "Internet" a buzzword is like giving them credit for the upturn and subsequent bull market that started in January of 1993, while Bush was still in office. Individuals do not shape these things... the Internet took off in 1994 (am i right here) when wide-spread access to the WWW became possible (I would also like to remind you of the paltry number of web sites back in 1993/1994, and the near non-existence of them in 1992). These men had nothing to do with it. A prospering economy gave more people access to computers, and some willing investors started up ISP's, and the rest took over... I cannot agree with you on giving them credit for that...
-G.
>Wee wrote:
Anyone who actually takes credit for coining that phrase deserves to be laughed at.
"Come on children, let's all point at Al and laugh. Hahahaha!"
>nullspace said:
Al Gore is doing nothing more than leeching off of every mainstream idea that he can get a hold of in the hope of trying to win over niave voters who believe everything he is shoveling. I would like to believe that most of America sees right through this and does not vote for him come election time.
Now you see why the majority of Tennesseans do not like him. He, just like his father before him, will do whatever it takes to get elected. Politics is his life, and, unlike most, he is good at it... which is what scares me most, not knowing if he is posing for the polls and the votes, or if he actually means these things...
As for viable canidates, well, it is still only April of '99... I'll wait a bit before I become dishearten...
-G.
Gotta agree with you on the internal computer bit; I would be hestitant about it... early adopter does not have my name on it. Instead, why not try to find the means to unlock and use that substantial amount that is already there. I mean, if we can do the activities and such that all of us do, and only use 10-15% of the brain, imagine the computational capacity if just 50% was used. Or even higher... Then, we might scoff at internal computers, knowing that it was a foolish I idea for the lazy, but then, I ramble...
>They don't realize that this is something we love. I personally say to myself that I get to go to work, rather than I have to go to work.
Heh... work for me consists of a bunch NT servers I am responsible for maintaining; I don't get to play with the 3 AIX machines =( So often I find myself wanting to stay home and tinker with Linux (I am relatively new to it, first installed in December 98), poking through it, learning it (partly in hopes to get to work with the AIX servers at work)... so, I guess until I get something else to do than pray over NT servers for deliverance from the "Mighty Blue Screen of Death"(c), I guess I'll want to stay home more than go to work.
As for the rest of you post... right on! I mean, I can say the same about people who watch the NASCAR races... after all, how many times can you watch a mid-sized car you'll never own go around in circles (or oval, or whatever the track configuartion is)? I can't stand it for 2 laps (guess I got a short attention span with that).
-G.
Let us also not forget that the first menu-driven interface (the father of the modern GUI) was created by a group of Air Force programmers who were told "it couldn't be done". Two of them, in fact, join Xerox when their service term was up, and help lead the programming for that GUI.
>Xerox invented the concept (right down to the mouse)
Just want to correct you here about the mouse; it was actually designed and constructed by someone at Stanford (someone help with the name, I'm drawing a blank) back in the late 1960s. The same guy is also credited with a whole slew of things generally believed to be created by others (like the like graphical Internet browser... only his ran on ARPANet in the '70s). I cannot remember a lot about his inventions (I only know a little about him); perhaps someone could help us with this and give credit where credit is due...
>Gates also said the Internet would go nowhere. Well, with a history of predictions like that, I think Linux is going to do just fine.
And less us not forget abot 640k...
jaraxle wrote:
>I don't think so... from what I read, it sounds like they will allow him to register any domain name that does NOT contain Theos in it at all... therefore theos.net and theos.org are out. that's bullsh*t if you ask me, but what do I know?
Oh... how gracious of them... you know, "allowing" someone to register a different domain name from the one they have owned for several years sounds like someone in marketing hasn't quite thought this one through...
Umm... appearently (to be nit-picky) you confuse the pilgrims with the Puritans. The pilgrim truely did exercise religious freedom (granted they were all Chrisitians). The Puritans, when they arrived in Massachusettes in the late 1620s - early 1630s, they forced everyone to conform with their brand of Christianity, they forced down peoples throats...
If you are going to slam someone, slam the right one...
Craw wrote:
>Dred Scott was in 1857 and that decision also declared that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. That part of the Dred Scott Decision was critical, IMHO. The Kansas-Nebraska Act came a few year earlier (also related to the Missouri Compromise).
You're right; I got the date wrong there. I guess I got some dates messed up, something (I think of which ones it would be). Anyways, I think it had been agreed that that particular case and its decision would have removed slavery as a reason for secession, for it essentially allowed slavery anywhere. If anything, it mainly infuriated the abolitionists. But the Southerns remained unconcerned; I could not find a single mention of the case after its decision in 1857 in Thomas Chiles Perrin or Francis McCall's diaries last night (I am not saying that I may not have missed it, although that is unlikely).
Craw continued with:
>Lincoln declared that the secession of the southern states was "illegal" (I can't remember the actual legal aspects). Hence, there was no actual breakup of the US and the conflict was a civil war. Of course the two sides greatly disagreed over this legal wrangling, and on Lincoln's decision to maintain occupancy of southern forts (like Sumter).
Well, there was a break-up; a new government was formed, ALL forts in the South (at least in the states that had seceeded) except for Sumter had been abandoned; Lincoln did want to maintain that one fort in Charleston, I think to maintain some military presence (and an eye on Southern trade, as Charleston was the main Southern port on the Atlantic), although I could very well be wrong on this, as I am speaking from memory, and I do not have the source in front of me. As for the legal aspects, there were no laws say you could not leave the Union, and in the Constitution, as it was constructed, there was nothing to prevent them. In fact, the 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Nowhere in the Constitution is removal from the Union mentioned, and it was generally assumed, by North and South, that if you cames of free-will, then you may leave. Lincoln was merely pulling a political move to maintain status quo because he feared a war would, if not now, eventually erupt; Lincoln was an excellent politican and statesman... he understood that he needed to get the South back in the Union to maintain the financial stability of the nation. The vast majority of statemen from the North recognized the fact that the Southern states were no longer part of the Union; if they were, why did they have to be readmitted after the war? I also would like to point out that the term "Civil War was not applied to it until several years after the war by a newspaperman for a New York newpaper (the Times? I'm not sure... need to check that out).
Craw then proceeds to say:
>IMHO, the War Between the States was the result of political and economic conflicts between the north and the south. The issue of slavery was inherent in both issues. However, the war did not start with the northern mantra of "Let's free the slaves." Most people, back then, were not that enlighten.
Perhaps I understated the importance of slavery in an effort to show the importance of states' rights in this struggle; I think you said it best.
And as far as the John Brown movie, yeah, RMS would work well...
Cause the issue was not slavery... read the posts just below this one, and come back later tonight for a fuller explanation with references.
Server is down at work, and tis 5:00pm... gonna be a little later than 6 when the repost rolls along, as I am liable to not get hom until later... I promise, however, it will be online before I am in bed (bedtime = 12-3AM)... look for it before midnight, though; I wanna get to bed early tonight...
And I'll try to wirte in complete sentences this time... =)
Whoops... sorry... wasn't trying to be inflammatory. I was merely trying to state the religious setting of my native region; the prior posts in no way reflect my personal religious beliefs (which I will keep out of this matter). Sorry I came across that way... Your right, though; to make ensure my posts are better worded.
I feel perhaps my aim at sarcasm missed the mark, in fact, I think I hit the bystanders...
I was not trying to say that the library did not serve the people by providing both information and methods of entertainment; they do accomplish both of these. I was trying, perhaps too caustically, to point out that sole reliance on a library, and hence the internet, is neither wise nor prudent; it is a tool, and is what you make of it, as you eloquently showed to us. Your right... I just overstepped the bounds of what I was trying to point out... hmmm... guess that means I need to work on the sarcasm bit...
Yes I can respond to this; in fact, the title graces my library at home... I just so ask that you wait until 6pm est, so I can get there, tell you the title, author, publication date, and even cite the page for you, rather than doing piece posting until then. I also have family diaries and bibles, which, btw, count as legal documents all stating the same. Two of the men whom I have the diaries for are Thomas Chiles Perrin, a prominent South Carolina statesman, and his son George Clopton Perrin. Additionally, Seaborn Howard Wade and Francis McCall, statesmen in Georgia, have record much the same in their own diaries. All of these books are available in the archives of their respective states, and I believe (am not sure, though) that a copy of Thomas Perrin's is in the Library of Congress. As for the quote by Nathan Bedford Forrest, check his memoirs and war diaries, specifically the time period after the battle of Chickamauga (ugh... please excuse the spelling). Again, when I return home I can give you a more specific citation, like the date in the diaries. If you want more specific data, let me go home and come through my stuff (btw my family has kept extensive documentation on this since we are from south Carolina and Georgia).
I also have to point to Klink's reply: why would the Southerns start a war over an issue that you state they had won? Forgetting that matter, why would leave the Union over a matter that they would not mention in any of the Ordinances of Secession?
I feel, for some reason, the need to state that, no, I do not believe that slavery was right, regardless of the reason. I do feel that more could have been done to rectify that and the larger reasons that precipitated that War Between the States (it not was a civil war... they were NOT members of the Union, and had already been recognized as such by President Buchanan; Lincoln himself didn't even use that term... but then, that's just nit-picking), and that it was through faults on both sides that more was not done.
I also remind you that the Dred Scott case had been resolved in 1854; the intervening six years saw it largely put behind them. And don't even get me started on Uncle Tom's Cabin...
Something else; check the newspapers, North and South, for the headlines during late 1860 - June 1861. And I mean major newspapers, not the political ones like the sundry of newspapers produced by William Garrison and Co. (aka The Abolitionist, etc.). I think you will be surprised by what you see.
Your attempt at correcting Jerrod's admittedly shakey understanding of US History is admirable (read the other posts for that information), you information, especially of the principles where incorrect.
Of 80% will get the most casulties; they have 60% more of the population than 20% (duh...). If you look at a percentage of each population, you will find that of the population without slaves, only 65% of them fought, while 63% of slave-owners fought.
And, you premise of why they fought is totally inaccurate. Slavery wasn't even an issue in 1861; although the revisionists would have you think otherwise, it was really a minor, to-be-dealt-with-after-the-others issue. Both sides, North and South, treated it as such, mainly because they knew when the others issues were resolved, this would resolved with it (one of the issues being the reformation of the Southern agarian economy). No, the war was fought over the states rights; many of them believe they were being infringed upon by the federal government, the federal government would not back down, saying as the majority (the Northern states) backed the more centralized government.
Additionally, I ask you this: would 75,000 free blacks sign up, voluntarily, to defend slavery? No... they wouldn't. And yet 75,000 black Southerns, ALL FREE MEN, signed up in 1861-1865 and fought in regiments along side the white regiments, and many served with distinction. In fact, Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest (know founding, then dissolving the Ku Klux Klan and his previous life as a slave trader) said that the black company that fought under him were the best fighters had seen, and "I trust them more than any white man under my command." Hmmm... doesn't sound like a slavery issue to me...
Please pardon the rant; I just wanted to set the record straight.
That is what I thought you might say. I guess, to appease the paying customers, perhaps an option for sites pertaining to the major religions for filtering based on there beliefs might be effective, but overall it would be awfully cumbersome (not trying to squash the littles guys their :)
I know not where you live, Jaime, but here in the South, the word "mormon" is almost as bad as naming The Dark Prince... a lot of the Christian element here in the South do not view the Mormon church as a denomination of Christianity, but rather a perversion of it. I suppose that the private religious schools (which also happen to abound here) would want that site blocked. If this still doesn't make since, then perhaps an explanation of the differences need to made, but I will only do that if necessary.
Yeah, and of course we all know the Internet is THE place for medical advice and counseling, especially when we have free Health Clinics in most everyplace there is a library (i.e. - Department of Health). And of course the doctors there could possibly know how to treat disease, or counsel an abuse victim. Yes, anonymity is good, but relying on the internet in cases like this, where your health is on the line, is not practice common sense.
Could you maybe elaborate on how the Bible is offensive? I am not disagreeing, or trying to point you elsewhere, I just think that maybe filters, when packaged and sold, might need definitions of offensive. Like, lewd (religion doesn't matter here in most cases), openly vouching violence against others (religion could matter), etc. Maybe, by elaborating the reasons sites are chosen would help illuminate what kind of filters work, and may even assist in individuals in picking one (for instance, you could have a Christian filter and a Muslim filter, to help shelter the kids).
The ACLU can bitch and moan all they want, and nothing can be done about it; it is a commercial product, not government-funded nor -developed, and thus it is completely out of the realm of the ACLU since use is voluntary. Sure they can complain, or even sue, but, if the judge is impartial, they wouldn't get anywhere.
I was also pleasantly surprised to the articles posted on their webpage that detracted from their product; kind of unusual for a commercial vendor to do as such.
And as far as perfect filters, I'll have to agree with Lurking Grue; it would be nigh unto impossible to get the "perfect" filter... a flexible one is perhaps the best we can hope for, and it may actually be what we want.
There are two specialized versions out there: DLD and Stampede, plus SuSE did, on March 20th at CeBIT in Europe, hand out version 6.1 Beta for Alpha, with an intended commercial release in May. Additionally, all it takes for kernel support is a simple kernel recompilation, as described in the appropriate HOWTOs. This has been in effect since 2.1.xxx. Versions 2.2.0 and 2.2.1 do not require patches for it to work, although 2.2.2 does. Additionally, several of the later 2.0.xx kernels will work on an Alpha with the appropriate patch.
Goto http://www.alphalinux.org for more information
Been trying to find the link... maybe someone else can help...
Appearantly last year at Emory University in Georgia researchers were able to insert a brain implant in to the skulls of several quadrapalegics (no spelling flames, please) that allowed them control over a mouse and keyboard. Although, depending on chemical balances, the device didn't always work, it was useful in the majority of attempts. I will continue to look for it; I first heard it on NPR on the way to work one morning. If anyone else knows what I am talking about and knows the link, please, post it.
Grandpa Spaz