.. the econo-nuts would let the US build more nuclear reactors within the United States in order to reduce our dependency on foreign oil...
Nah, that would never happen!
Instead, their socialist buddies claim the Bush administration liberated Iraq for oil, althought Bush-Chenery energy policy has been, since the 2000 election campaign, to increase the number of nuclear reactors.
There's nothing to see here, people...
on
Ballmer on Linux
·
· Score: 1
Isn't a violation of someone's civil liberties to profile them? I mean, shouldn't that be stopped? Especially when it comes to Black & White... racial profiling is wrong!
Right, because in Bosnia we bombed Christians who were caucasion, not Muslims.
Doesn't compare to the Patriot Act
There have been more stories on/. about the problems with the DMCA than the Patriot Act. Considering that there have not been any abuses of the patriot act, yet several abuses of the DMCA, it seems that, you're correct, you cannot compare the two... because the DMCA is a lot worse.
Doesn't compare to the deficit we're running now OR a war that is dumping $$$ into the VP's former company.
Yeah, you tell 'em! If it wasn't for the 40 years of Democratic Congress rule, we wouldn't be nearly $8 trillion in debt! Damn them!
But anyway, you really can not blame Bush for ANY of these things... since all of these, bombing of Bosnia & Iraq, the DMCA, the Patriot Act, the tax breaks, and military spending, etc... were all passed by Congress... since that is their job.
Oh, and don't blame Bush for the Patriot Act solely, either... look at the numbers, 357-66 for in the House and 98-1 for in the Senate.
Call me a troll, fine... but it seems to me that most of the responses of negativity towards the article is with the reasoning, "I'm not employed, so therefore IT jobs arent being created."
However, I must say, as I am currently looking for alternate employment, I have had several opprotunities for job interviews (about 10). And these jobs range from technical support at 30k/yr through Sr Network Engineer and Security Analysts at 100k/yr and more.
The jobs are out there, people... however (here's the troll) whether you're qualified for them is another thing altogether. Whether you want to be a tech support guy is yet another... It also depends on where you live (I happen to live in the NYC area and there are plenty of IT jobs around). Yes, my current company is outsourcing to India, but we're still hiring IT people... just not the same group of IT people.
Oh and one other thing... most of the people that were laid off here in the US due to my company's outsourcing have been Indians who are here on work visas.... so if you're going to get the same people at 1/2 the price because they are 6000 miles away, then why wouldn't a company do that?
A boycott in French goods, specifically wine, have contributed to a drop of nearly 30% of sales for French wineries in 2003. That's pretty significant. (not saying the boycott was the only cause, but one of them... in 2002, French wineries saw a drop of 11%)
Public opinion "pulled" the Reagans off CBS. Viewers of CBS threatened to boycott the network, including it's advertisers, and because CBS's revenue is based on the money it makes from it's advertisers, it felt best to hand it over to Showtime (who's money is made based on subscription rates) where it was shown many times. There is no "conspiracy" here, just the facts of cold, hard cash.
Or how dissenting voices regarding the Iraq invasion were barely heard?
Because "all the people" that mattered were not dissenting, including people like oh.. John Kerry... who was for the war just as much as the President was. However, he heard PLENTY of how dissent from the French and the Germans in this time period.
Or how a Hollywood star is now the governor of California and a Republican.
Not the first, probably won't be the last. However, remember Arnold is married to a Kennedy and is socially liberal while economically conservative. Bush did not support Arnold during his run, and therefore, now, Arnold is not supporting Bush. So, this has less to do with a "ring wind conspiracy" as you would have us believe and more to do with getting Grey Davis out of office for being an idiot.
Or how media ownership is concentraed into the hands of a few vocal conservatives?
I don't know where you get your information. Ted Turner? Hardly a conservative. Yet, he owns several networks. This has nothing to do with politics. Although you conspiracy theorists would like us to believe that "big media" is controlled by the right in order to convince us there isn't a liberal bias in the media (which there is).
Or how F9/11 got dropped by Disney and was in "can't find a distributator" mode for a while?
Again, that's about money... Disney was threatened with a boycott of it's products, and when it came down to the cold, hard cash... they backed away. However, it was the Miramax "brothers" who saved the day and gave us that enlightened film produced by Michael Moore... (yeah, right, enlightened....)
Or how every "history" movie (especially WWII) is ahistoric and highly pro-American. With the exception of Vietnam movies.
Why wouldn't a histoical movie of WWII be highly pro-American? If you remember, the US was attacked without cause on December 7. Not only was the war effort in response to that unprovoked attack, but it was also to remove from power one of history's worst criminal to humanity, Adolf Hitler, who had killed millions of Jews. Now when you consider that the effort the US took both militarily and industrially to pull off such a thing, it should make one sit back and awe at the pure ability of a people to come together for a common goal.
Or how the Pentagon will lend Hollywood any equipment they want but they get to edit the script for right-wing pro-military ahistory "patriotic correctness?"
I'm sorry, but I would not lend Michael Moore by computer to check his webmail if I knew he would then turn it against me somehow because I used Mozilla instead of MSIE. And the Pentagon does not lend, it leases... and 99% of the time it's either footage and not equipment itself.
Or how TV was quick to digitally remove the twin towers from every skyline as not to upset anyone?
Yeah, this was nuts... but it was Hollywood. Again, it's the cold, hard cash that influenced this one.
Or how shows that tackle history in an honest and non-partisan way only exist on PBS?
Considering PBS is, at least partially, federally funded, it's strange you would say "gov't influences history" and then say "except PBS, they're cool". I dunno... seems odd.
Or how Malkin can go on TV and say Kerry shot himself for his medals? Or how Anne Coulter can openly call Liberals treasonous and demand the deaths of muslims and coverting them to Xtianity. Both of whom are still on the pundit short list for other shows.
More Russian soldiers died in WWII than other allied soldiers fought.
Look at the numbers. Russia had over 9 million people killed during WWII, and another 18 million wounded. Compared to the rest of the allied powers who had approx 2.8 million killed and 3 million wounded. (Source: http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob62.h tml).
Does this mean WWII was unilateral? I mean, look at the number of deaths alone and you see a HUGE difference in the number of soldiers!
You can not blame Bush for "misguiding" the American people on Iraq, because Kerry was just as misguiding. Actually, since Kerry has the vote to give Bush the authority to go to war (Congress declares war, or gives the president the ability), then Kerry is actually MORE responsible for the war in Iraq than the president.
But in reality, you are never going to have 100% approval from every nation. The fact is that the U.S. and U.K. had support by over 30 nations (36 I believe) in the effort. However, just because it did not include France and Germany, Kerry says "it was unilateral!"
This is a sad state when cooperation requires the help of the French.
If the gov't is going to protect us by making sure we're educated... by making sure there arent any bad weapons... by making sure we have somewhere to run when we're destitute... or when we retire.... why shouldn't be expect the gov't to protect us on board an aircraft, too?
On the other hand, if the gov't expects us to take care of ourselves, which is what I believe is meant by 'individual liberties', then all of these things should be removed, and yes also checking IDs when boarding aircraft, and let me take care of my own freedom.
Hence the second amendment, which is in dispute, is meant to protect the individual from the government. My right to bear arms is my right to protect myself from the gov't. This is the same principle... I protect myself from my neighbor... the gov't protects me from it's neighbors.
If the gov't is going to tell me I can't carry assault rifles (or even hand guns in some states), then I sure as hell expect them to check IDs at the door to that airplane.
On the other hand, if they weren't checking IDs, I'd also want to right to carry an assault rifle. If the gov't wants to protect me, fine, then let them do that... but by saying "no to assault weapons" and "yes to no checking IDs on airplanes" means that the terrorist gets on the plane, but I don't have an assault rifle to shoot him in the head.
IMHO, sure, anonymous traval for all... anonymous purchasing of guns, too... so when that terrorist does get on the plane, he will have to deal with me, too...
"We need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation....And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." - John Kerry, 1/23/03
You know of know location where the public education is handled by the US federal government?
OK, there is no location directly handled by US federal government, but remember, as you said, there is always a hidden reason they do the stuff they do....
Approximately $33 billion per year are allocated by the federal gov't (no child left behind increased the number from $21 billion) to the public school system in the country. However, in order to obtain the funding, the schools must meet certain standards in how well a kid does, what courses they teach, etc. The money is given to the states. The states have the right to refuse the money, however their constituents pay the taxes which fund that $33 billion, therefore they are obligated, by their constituents, to accept the money and accept the terms of accepting that money.
While the federal gov't does not "handle directly" any educational facility, it does in fact strongly influence the way the schools are run.
Right, and the Patriot Act has specifically denied you rights, yet the argument by most/.'ers is that it violates their right to privacy. Therefore, their argument is MOOT as you have just made it MOOT.
Just as the government has said "no getting on planes with ID." Yes, this is a law. The government has "specifically denied you the right" to get on board an airplane without showing identification. Therefore, you don't have that right.
Public Education Internal Revenue Service Assault Weapons Ban Welfare Social Security
After all, these all have "suspicious indirect government intentions." Not to mention, they all restrict the individual's freedom as they contribute to the "ever-increasing state powers" which control our lives.
The state has no interest in protecting isa-kuruption (317695). It has interesting in perpetuating its power for the sole purpose of perpetuating its power.
Of a state 'for the people, by the people...' by definition the state is interest in protecting me as I am the one who defined the state. Therefore, your argument would sit well in Communist China, but not in a democratic nation such as the United States.
Oh look right here in the preamble... "secure the Blessings of Liberty...". What do you think that means?
Right, and in order to "secure the Blessings of Liberty", in other words, your ability to travel around the country, you need to show identification to verify who you say you are so that the guy who gets on board behind you isn't someone planning on running the plane into a building.
And what about that beautiful document called the Declaration of Independance... "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty...".... and the pursuit of happiness. You won't be too happy when that guy behind you on line decides to slit the throat of your mother sitting next to you on the airplane. Besides, what does 'liberty' have to do with your 'rights'. Liberty, itself, is a right... not that it has any affect on the other rights you may or may not have.
You have the right to commit murder? Sure! Because it's not forbidden by the constitution, just by law.
So I guess the law in unconstitutional? There's an argument! What about your right to launder money? There's one not so "out there". Should you have that right, too?
Nope, no Right to Travel Anonymously. Where did this right come from? Hrmmm...
It's sorta like your right to privacy, it DOES NOT EXIST once you leave your home. Your right to privacy only exists within the confines of your home, so get used to it.
This is honestly going TOO FAR, you don't have the right to do-anything-you-want. What's next?
Your right to miniature golf? Your right to Six Flags? Your right to drive slow in the left hand lane?
Guess what, some things are priviledges and not rights, and sometimes priviledges are taken away... like when children are bad and their mommy punishes them. Sure, maybe *we* weren't the bad ones, but all mommy knows is that one of the neighborhood kids is being naughty and needs to know who each kid's mother is before she lets them in the house.
You obviously did not read the article past the first couple paragraphs. You can look up the original paper, which is about 20 pages long, in which they explain everything about how they came up with the numbers.
Yes, they did sample everything from 1990 to 2003 using house.gov as their source. Since they used a website, they were able to use a crawler to search for the think tanks they were interested in. They probably did the same with the periodical sources. Besides, they were grad students... if there is anything grad students have, it's lots of free time.
They chose the house because it has the largest sampling of members, probably. The house was NOT republican before 1994, therefore that point is moot. The number they came up with was 39, stating that of all members of the house tend to be more conservative than liberal.
Now the comparison is still apt, where 39 being the "moderate" because looking for the same think tanks, if all media outlets were all "moderate" their average score would hover around 39. If they were less than 39, they would be more conservative and if they were higher, more liberal. The two numbers are comparable if using the same equation to determine the number.
Anyway, for the "actual study" from google cache, take a look at this page...
Yes, and there are conflicting reports of this. In particular a study done by the University of California and Stanford. The link is here to a PDF on the results of the report.
Of course this question is highly subjective, but with Windows 2.0 and eventually Windows 3.1, Microsoft became the name of desktop operating systems. This wasn't through "extremely aggressive" business tactics as it was truly a superior system.
This success for Microsoft led to them developing more software to compliment their operating system... Microsoft was a name everyone recognized and "loved" because of it's windowing platform... so it's an easy leap for people to say "hey if Windows is good, why wouldn't office be?"
It wasn't until much later (late 90s) than MS started playing games with aggressive marketing tactics and forcing competition out of business. But then again, it wouldn't have had the money to do that without the huge number of sales that came with the release of Windows 95.
Slashdot Mirror
.. the econo-nuts would let the US build more nuclear reactors within the United States in order to reduce our dependency on foreign oil...
Nah, that would never happen!
Instead, their socialist buddies claim the Bush administration liberated Iraq for oil, althought Bush-Chenery energy policy has been, since the 2000 election campaign, to increase the number of nuclear reactors.
... move along, now.
Isn't a violation of someone's civil liberties to profile them? I mean, shouldn't that be stopped? Especially when it comes to Black & White... racial profiling is wrong!
Doesn't compare to Iraq.
/. about the problems with the DMCA than the Patriot Act. Considering that there have not been any abuses of the patriot act, yet several abuses of the DMCA, it seems that, you're correct, you cannot compare the two... because the DMCA is a lot worse.
Right, because in Bosnia we bombed Christians who were caucasion, not Muslims.
Doesn't compare to the Patriot Act
There have been more stories on
Doesn't compare to the deficit we're running now OR a war that is dumping $$$ into the VP's former company.
Yeah, you tell 'em! If it wasn't for the 40 years of Democratic Congress rule, we wouldn't be nearly $8 trillion in debt! Damn them!
But anyway, you really can not blame Bush for ANY of these things... since all of these, bombing of Bosnia & Iraq, the DMCA, the Patriot Act, the tax breaks, and military spending, etc... were all passed by Congress... since that is their job.
Oh, and don't blame Bush for the Patriot Act solely, either... look at the numbers, 357-66 for in the House and 98-1 for in the Senate.
Actually, we haven't hired any sysadmins.
We've hired network engineers, management-type people (VP's, directors, etc), system architects (ex-consultants now employees) and systems analysts.
Outsourcing will fair for the primary reason that for every 1 person that's outsourced to India, we need 2 people to manage that relationship.
Call me a troll, fine... but it seems to me that most of the responses of negativity towards the article is with the reasoning, "I'm not employed, so therefore IT jobs arent being created."
However, I must say, as I am currently looking for alternate employment, I have had several opprotunities for job interviews (about 10). And these jobs range from technical support at 30k/yr through Sr Network Engineer and Security Analysts at 100k/yr and more.
The jobs are out there, people... however (here's the troll) whether you're qualified for them is another thing altogether. Whether you want to be a tech support guy is yet another... It also depends on where you live (I happen to live in the NYC area and there are plenty of IT jobs around). Yes, my current company is outsourcing to India, but we're still hiring IT people... just not the same group of IT people.
Oh and one other thing... most of the people that were laid off here in the US due to my company's outsourcing have been Indians who are here on work visas.... so if you're going to get the same people at 1/2 the price because they are 6000 miles away, then why wouldn't a company do that?
A boycott in French goods, specifically wine, have contributed to a drop of nearly 30% of sales for French wineries in 2003. That's pretty significant. (not saying the boycott was the only cause, but one of them... in 2002, French wineries saw a drop of 11%)
Or how they pulled the Reagans?
Public opinion "pulled" the Reagans off CBS. Viewers of CBS threatened to boycott the network, including it's advertisers, and because CBS's revenue is based on the money it makes from it's advertisers, it felt best to hand it over to Showtime (who's money is made based on subscription rates) where it was shown many times. There is no "conspiracy" here, just the facts of cold, hard cash.
Or how dissenting voices regarding the Iraq invasion were barely heard?
Because "all the people" that mattered were not dissenting, including people like oh.. John Kerry... who was for the war just as much as the President was. However, he heard PLENTY of how dissent from the French and the Germans in this time period.
Or how a Hollywood star is now the governor of California and a Republican.
Not the first, probably won't be the last. However, remember Arnold is married to a Kennedy and is socially liberal while economically conservative. Bush did not support Arnold during his run, and therefore, now, Arnold is not supporting Bush. So, this has less to do with a "ring wind conspiracy" as you would have us believe and more to do with getting Grey Davis out of office for being an idiot.
Or how media ownership is concentraed into the hands of a few vocal conservatives?
I don't know where you get your information. Ted Turner? Hardly a conservative. Yet, he owns several networks. This has nothing to do with politics. Although you conspiracy theorists would like us to believe that "big media" is controlled by the right in order to convince us there isn't a liberal bias in the media (which there is).
Or how F9/11 got dropped by Disney and was in "can't find a distributator" mode for a while?
Again, that's about money... Disney was threatened with a boycott of it's products, and when it came down to the cold, hard cash... they backed away. However, it was the Miramax "brothers" who saved the day and gave us that enlightened film produced by Michael Moore... (yeah, right, enlightened....)
Or how every "history" movie (especially WWII) is ahistoric and highly pro-American. With the exception of Vietnam movies.
Why wouldn't a histoical movie of WWII be highly pro-American? If you remember, the US was attacked without cause on December 7. Not only was the war effort in response to that unprovoked attack, but it was also to remove from power one of history's worst criminal to humanity, Adolf Hitler, who had killed millions of Jews. Now when you consider that the effort the US took both militarily and industrially to pull off such a thing, it should make one sit back and awe at the pure ability of a people to come together for a common goal.
Or how the Pentagon will lend Hollywood any equipment they want but they get to edit the script for right-wing pro-military ahistory "patriotic correctness?"
I'm sorry, but I would not lend Michael Moore by computer to check his webmail if I knew he would then turn it against me somehow because I used Mozilla instead of MSIE. And the Pentagon does not lend, it leases... and 99% of the time it's either footage and not equipment itself.
Or how TV was quick to digitally remove the twin towers from every skyline as not to upset anyone?
Yeah, this was nuts... but it was Hollywood. Again, it's the cold, hard cash that influenced this one.
Or how shows that tackle history in an honest and non-partisan way only exist on PBS?
Considering PBS is, at least partially, federally funded, it's strange you would say "gov't influences history" and then say "except PBS, they're cool". I dunno... seems odd.
Or how Malkin can go on TV and say Kerry shot himself for his medals? Or how Anne Coulter can openly call Liberals treasonous and demand the deaths of muslims and coverting them to Xtianity. Both of whom are still on the pundit short list for other shows.
More Russian soldiers died in WWII than other allied soldiers fought.
h tml).
Look at the numbers. Russia had over 9 million people killed during WWII, and another 18 million wounded. Compared to the rest of the allied powers who had approx 2.8 million killed and 3 million wounded. (Source: http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob62.
Does this mean WWII was unilateral? I mean, look at the number of deaths alone and you see a HUGE difference in the number of soldiers!
Right, except that wasn't my point.
You can not blame Bush for "misguiding" the American people on Iraq, because Kerry was just as misguiding. Actually, since Kerry has the vote to give Bush the authority to go to war (Congress declares war, or gives the president the ability), then Kerry is actually MORE responsible for the war in Iraq than the president.
But in reality, you are never going to have 100% approval from every nation. The fact is that the U.S. and U.K. had support by over 30 nations (36 I believe) in the effort. However, just because it did not include France and Germany, Kerry says "it was unilateral!"
This is a sad state when cooperation requires the help of the French.
And also what I meant to add..
If the gov't is going to protect us by making sure we're educated... by making sure there arent any bad weapons... by making sure we have somewhere to run when we're destitute... or when we retire.... why shouldn't be expect the gov't to protect us on board an aircraft, too?
On the other hand, if the gov't expects us to take care of ourselves, which is what I believe is meant by 'individual liberties', then all of these things should be removed, and yes also checking IDs when boarding aircraft, and let me take care of my own freedom.
Hence the second amendment, which is in dispute, is meant to protect the individual from the government. My right to bear arms is my right to protect myself from the gov't. This is the same principle... I protect myself from my neighbor... the gov't protects me from it's neighbors.
Right....
So, my point of view is this...
If the gov't is going to tell me I can't carry assault rifles (or even hand guns in some states), then I sure as hell expect them to check IDs at the door to that airplane.
On the other hand, if they weren't checking IDs, I'd also want to right to carry an assault rifle. If the gov't wants to protect me, fine, then let them do that... but by saying "no to assault weapons" and "yes to no checking IDs on airplanes" means that the terrorist gets on the plane, but I don't have an assault rifle to shoot him in the head.
IMHO, sure, anonymous traval for all... anonymous purchasing of guns, too... so when that terrorist does get on the plane, he will have to deal with me, too...
And remember...
...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." - John Kerry, 1/23/03
"We need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation.
Other Kerry quotes of interest...
You know of know location where the public education is handled by the US federal government?
OK, there is no location directly handled by US federal government, but remember, as you said, there is always a hidden reason they do the stuff they do....
Approximately $33 billion per year are allocated by the federal gov't (no child left behind increased the number from $21 billion) to the public school system in the country. However, in order to obtain the funding, the schools must meet certain standards in how well a kid does, what courses they teach, etc. The money is given to the states. The states have the right to refuse the money, however their constituents pay the taxes which fund that $33 billion, therefore they are obligated, by their constituents, to accept the money and accept the terms of accepting that money.
While the federal gov't does not "handle directly" any educational facility, it does in fact strongly influence the way the schools are run.
Right, and the Patriot Act has specifically denied you rights, yet the argument by most /.'ers is that it violates their right to privacy. Therefore, their argument is MOOT as you have just made it MOOT.
Just as the government has said "no getting on planes with ID." Yes, this is a law. The government has "specifically denied you the right" to get on board an airplane without showing identification. Therefore, you don't have that right.
Thanks for clearing that up!
True. But then I'm sure you're against:
Public Education
Internal Revenue Service
Assault Weapons Ban
Welfare
Social Security
After all, these all have "suspicious indirect government intentions." Not to mention, they all restrict the individual's freedom as they contribute to the "ever-increasing state powers" which control our lives.
The state has no interest in protecting isa-kuruption (317695). It has interesting in perpetuating its power for the sole purpose of perpetuating its power.
Of a state 'for the people, by the people...' by definition the state is interest in protecting me as I am the one who defined the state. Therefore, your argument would sit well in Communist China, but not in a democratic nation such as the United States.
Oh look right here in the preamble... "secure the Blessings of Liberty...". What do you think that means?
... and the pursuit of happiness. You won't be too happy when that guy behind you on line decides to slit the throat of your mother sitting next to you on the airplane. Besides, what does 'liberty' have to do with your 'rights'. Liberty, itself, is a right... not that it has any affect on the other rights you may or may not have.
Right, and in order to "secure the Blessings of Liberty", in other words, your ability to travel around the country, you need to show identification to verify who you say you are so that the guy who gets on board behind you isn't someone planning on running the plane into a building.
And what about that beautiful document called the Declaration of Independance... "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty...".
You have the right to commit murder? Sure! Because it's not forbidden by the constitution, just by law.
So I guess the law in unconstitutional? There's an argument! What about your right to launder money? There's one not so "out there". Should you have that right, too?
*looks over Bill of Rights*
Nope, no Right to Travel Anonymously. Where did this right come from? Hrmmm...
It's sorta like your right to privacy, it DOES NOT EXIST once you leave your home. Your right to privacy only exists within the confines of your home, so get used to it.
This is honestly going TOO FAR, you don't have the right to do-anything-you-want. What's next?
Your right to miniature golf?
Your right to Six Flags?
Your right to drive slow in the left hand lane?
Guess what, some things are priviledges and not rights, and sometimes priviledges are taken away... like when children are bad and their mommy punishes them. Sure, maybe *we* weren't the bad ones, but all mommy knows is that one of the neighborhood kids is being naughty and needs to know who each kid's mother is before she lets them in the house.
Dextre looks like a Lego bot. Is this how NASA plans to save money?
You obviously did not read the article past the first couple paragraphs. You can look up the original paper, which is about 20 pages long, in which they explain everything about how they came up with the numbers.
Yes, they did sample everything from 1990 to 2003 using house.gov as their source. Since they used a website, they were able to use a crawler to search for the think tanks they were interested in. They probably did the same with the periodical sources. Besides, they were grad students... if there is anything grad students have, it's lots of free time.
They chose the house because it has the largest sampling of members, probably. The house was NOT republican before 1994, therefore that point is moot. The number they came up with was 39, stating that of all members of the house tend to be more conservative than liberal.
Now the comparison is still apt, where 39 being the "moderate" because looking for the same think tanks, if all media outlets were all "moderate" their average score would hover around 39. If they were less than 39, they would be more conservative and if they were higher, more liberal. The two numbers are comparable if using the same equation to determine the number.
Anyway, for the "actual study" from google cache, take a look at this page...
Yes, and there are conflicting reports of this. In particular a study done by the University of California and Stanford. The link is here to a PDF on the results of the report.
In the words of the great Homer Simpson:
"Canada? Why should leave America to visit America Junior?"
Of course this question is highly subjective, but with Windows 2.0 and eventually Windows 3.1, Microsoft became the name of desktop operating systems. This wasn't through "extremely aggressive" business tactics as it was truly a superior system.
This success for Microsoft led to them developing more software to compliment their operating system... Microsoft was a name everyone recognized and "loved" because of it's windowing platform... so it's an easy leap for people to say "hey if Windows is good, why wouldn't office be?"
It wasn't until much later (late 90s) than MS started playing games with aggressive marketing tactics and forcing competition out of business. But then again, it wouldn't have had the money to do that without the huge number of sales that came with the release of Windows 95.