How about not funding terrorism in Norther Ireland? That would be a good start. Cheap to implement, too...
Why don't the British-descent imperialists in Northern Ireland go home to "great" Britain and leave the Irish at peace?
A cheap solution to the problem in Northern Ireland, don't you think? If you must point fingers, try pointing them sowhere besides the U.S., and you might find yourself more correct.
I think the real problem is Canadians entering the U.S. from Canada.:)
I'm kidding.
If you are in B.C. then your accent is surely as neutral as the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Speaking of customs and such, I've noticed that when I come back into the U.S. they ask me just a few questions: 1. "Are you all U.S. citizens?" If yes, go to question 3. 2a. "No? Okay, what citizenships do you hold?" 2b. "Are any of you dual-citezenship, and if so, where?" 3. "Are you transporting controlled substances, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, or any items in quantity subject to duty?" "Thanks, have a nice day."
But, going into Canada: "Can I see some identification?" "Where are you going?" "What are you planning to do?" "How long do you plan on being in Canada?" "Which border point do you plan for you return?" "Do you have any firearms?" "Could you pull over here. We are going to do a 'random' search on your vehicle."
So tell me, is the reverse true for Canadians? Do our customs grill you over for your entire vacation plans and searching your vehicle far more often than should statistically be done? Or, is it just your customs being jerks?
Having had some training in swordfighting, I doubt I'd be saying much.
Oh come now... I've had some training in swordfighting too, and I *love* Princess Bride-style conversation during swordplay, don't you?:)
I'll take your recommendation on AOTC. Though I still think that's gotta be the lamest name it could have. "The Clone War" would have been much better.
The simple fact is, he is not as creative as he once was. (If he truly wrote Ep IV-VI.) He is desperately trying to capitalize on Star Wars again, and is grasping at straws.
The original Star Wars trilogy was so good because it didn't use cliche, didn't have a bunch of well-known actors, and had some things that were fairly inconceivable.
I haven't seen II yet, but in I he has done the following:
1. Turned the force into a scientifically measurable thing. (Mitochondria^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H midi-chlorians) This destroys the mythico-religious symbolism, which was damned important in the later episodes.
2. Changed Obi-wan's master. In IV his master was Yoda. In I it was Qui-gon. Hmmm.
3. The movies don't even *look* related. How is Lucas going to explain the change in spacecraft design from I and II to IV-VI? The nice thing about SW was that the spacecraft were very polygon-oriented in design, not curvaceous. It looked more *real* compared to modern technology.
4. The dialog in the fight scenes in IV-VI made the fights more "human"... it gave the fights meaning instead of just fighting for the fighting. There wasn't any of this in I.
5. Obi-wan was humble in IV, and it seemed in the original trilogy, the example of a Jedi was a quiet, thoughtful warrior. In I, the Jedi were arrogant, and violence was the first choice, rather than using problem-solving thought process. There was not much "I don't want to fight" and a lot of "I'm going to kick your fscking ass."
6. Jar-Jar Binks. Enough said.There lies the problems. Lucas should have let fans create the prequels. I guarantee they would have done a better job.
bend.com is notorious for this. Worse, the editor changes the articles and thus makes the already-posted comments irrelevant or complaints seem unfounded (or stupid.)
I've exchanged messages with the editor, and he won't budge. A lot of us have mentioned it, but no changes are going to take place, as far as I know.
That's the wonderful thing about having a good ISP, and friends and family who don't use Outlook. (Friends mostly use Linux, family mostly uses Netscape or Hotmail... I'm trying to convert the Hotmail people to something else.)
To date, I have never received an e-mail virus or worm.
Now, back in the day when I did a lot of floppy exchange... well, I saw several virii "in the wild."
And my whole point is that we limit all kinds of things to minors already, not necessarily speech.
The right to vote is certainly a limitation on free speech when it is denied, as it is.
As far as "anyone can buy *any* music" well, not here... if it's got a parental warning sticker, good luck buying it if you are under 17. I don't know if it's industry-voluntary or local law, but you can't.
The level design, the method of expression, the ambience portrayed, the textures that make it realistic. The levels in say... Doom, are akin to sculpture. Each one is the product of creative process.
That makes it art, and therefore freely expressable.
However... limiting access to kids under 17... we already limit alcohol, cigarettes, porno mags, music, voting, etc. If anything, sometimes this is warranted. Most kids could get their parents to buy one of those games, anyway.
Mostly I was just pissed off that anyone would dare call the U.S. fascist. My family is from East Prussia, and one of my relatives was Hitler's chief-of-staff for the military. (A soldier, not a Nazi... I've read his autobiography and other texts.) But, people don't make the distinction of oath of service one's country, and believing the national regime's propaganda. So, as a result, I grew up being called a "Nazi" as soon as that came to light in a class in grade school. So, you see the basis for being offended. After that, it was tirade.
Let me clarify my stance on the CBDTPA:
For the record, I agree with you about the CBDTPA. I don't like the law, and have written letters against it. I agree that there IS a problem with piracy, however.
I used to be a pirate. To be honest, it was mostly because I couldn't afford the stuff I wanted. I would have paid for it otherwise. Then I discovered Linux.:)
The main reason I brought up content control is that the original poster seemed to think that ANY copyright system of any nature was wrong, and limiting free speech. (freedom of speech and expression is already limited, and I don't have a problem with reasonable limitations... yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre, for instance.) I agree with a non-renewable copyright system. A shorter-time patent system that doesn't include software (reimplentation is fine for all things, and software is covered in copyright) or naturally-occuring substances (DNA).
The big problem with patenting software and algorithms, is that with patents on physical objects, one generally has the chance to invent something that gets the same (or similar) result through different means, at least for processes. That is not true of software, and getting the same result violates the patent. That is just plain wrong.
Anyway, thanks for listening to my point of view, and seeing past the way I put things. That makes you a lot more respectable than most people.
I'm not totally up on American law, but I'm pretty certain that your constitution guarantees many freedoms (such as freedom of speech). If the CBDTPA is just an extension to the DMCA then it is anti free-speech. Isn't that your first amendment?
I don't like the way the law is written, either, and I don't like governent regulation of technology, however... ARTISTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTROL THE FRUITS OF THEIR LABOR!!!
Believe it or not, it takes real thought and work to produce music and other artistic expressions. The creations are each unique. The bullshit argument that "the people who copy wouldn't have paid for it anyway" doesn't fly. Things distributed in limited quantity have value. The mere act of copying devalues music, just like a counterfeit painting devalues the original.
... acting as a charity (and handing out money for people to go to school without any guarantees they'll get it back is nothing more than a backhanded charity) and not want it being a charity.
No, it is not a charity. Sure, there are some people that screw the system, but most do not. Like any other lender, the government expects to be paid back, with interest. They will do everything they can to get it back, including collections actions, witholding of tax refunds, and civil lawsuits. That's not the same as handing out the money for free.
I am assuming you think the 9th grader has an easier life. Hate to break it to you but if he gets a job it will not be easy. People say all the time "Gas pumpers and golden arches flippers have it easy". Well, if so why not do their job? . I know why. Becuase the job sucks. Its physically demanding, or mentally annoying. Either way most everyone who graduates college is looking for the cushy, easy way out with a 9-5 desk job pushing paper.
I NEVER said it was easy. I have been a burger flipper at McDonalds, and it paid the bills. Within six months I was a manager. When I decided I didn't want to do it anymore, I went into the Army. Partly so I could afford more education, and partly to gain more work experience. When I left the Army, I had a job within two weeks. It paid a lot less, but it was still honest wages. When I got laid off from that job, I got another job immediately, again, honest wages. When I became unemployed last year, and could NOT find a job, I went back to school.
What I have a problem with, is that while there are people who genuinely need help, most people "out on the streets" CHOOSE to be there, because they aren't willing to do what it takes to make them successful. They won't go to places like Goodwill or the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, or any number of employment charities. (That I routinly give money to so they can continue to do so.) They won't go back to school, and they won't flip burgers. Not because they can't, because they won't.
You can bring up the point that they might be physically or mentally disabled. My school employs about 250 people with varying problems like downs-syndrome, confinement to wheelchairs, and other disabilities. For people with acute sociopathic disorders that prevent them from working, there are institutions that can and will take care of them. The simple fact is, that the original post pissed me off by basically saying that people who are successful are directly responsible for people who fail, and made the implication that it is the government's responsibility to take from the successful and give to the unsuccessful.
Perhaps you're just confused on the meaning of "fascism". It doesn't have anything to do with work, you know.
I know damn well what fascism is. Our country is a far cry from it. My problem was, the original poster was calling the U.S. fascist, all the same advocating socialism-near-communism. The specific comment "a social policy that leaves people hungry, homeless, undereducated and in poor health" is what pissed me off.
People are hungry because they choose to be, either by choosing not to work, or by choosing not to go to one of the established charities who would love to help them.
People are homeless for the same reason. In the United States, if you are a high school graduate under age 35, I know someone who is constantly hiring. It's called the Army, and they have 212 ways for you to be a soldier. And I'm NOT a recruiter, just a happy customer. They'll give you a home, a job, and a paycheck.
People are uneducated because they choose not to take advantage of the aforementioned student loans, or they drop out of high school. People are in poor health because they smoke, eat junk food all the time, and don't bother to plan for health care. All choices for most of those people. For the relatively few who need help, the help is available.
The original poster was trying to imply that our "fascist" society forces them into the position they are in. For most of those people, they put themselves there.
And that's where the last comment I made that you said you didn't know where it came from fits in, though I could have stated it better.
No, it isn't. It has to be paid back, with interest. If it is not paid back, they will send it to collections, which will be punishment. They will also take it back from any tax refund, and probably take it to court.
That's not the same as money that does not need to be paid back.
Furthermore, one could treat school, and becoming a better benefit to society, as an occupation. At least it's a form of work. It certainly isn't "free" money.
Of course. We should have kept recounting the Florida election until it went the other way.
I doubt anyone here sees President Bush as a god. Hate to burst your bubble.
Now, you make an accusation that the legislative body is disregarding the Constitution by passing laws to promote and protect big corporate interests. While I don't disagree about the nature of the laws, I do question your assertion that they are violating the Constitution. Which part?
I will only touch on one other thing you brought up, as I am tired. Social policy. Well, I'm a firm believer that there are plenty of charities out there, and the government doesn't need to be one of them.
I can name a dozen charities that are successful and really help people. I can only name one government program that did the same, and it no longer exists. (the CCC.) I still haven't figured out where people like you get the idea that you should strongarm people like me into giving to beggars on the street like the one who sits at the stoplight a few blocks from here. I happen to know for a fact that he could go to Goodwill or the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and they would help, along with most churches, and many non-religious organizations. Why make the government responsible for a task that is already being done?
Maybe we should just hand them money and make people like me do the work?
You really touched a nerve in me tonight.
You know, I've become unemployed in the past (living in the state with the top unemployment rate in the country right now) and you know what? I went back to school to make myself more qualified. The government is more than willing to loan almost anyone money to go to school. But then again, if you aren't motivated to work (or even try to get a job), why would you bother to put the time into school?
Then again, why do anything at all when the government is making the people who actually do the work pay your way through life? Hey, spit out a few kids and get even more, right? Hey, why don't we make everyone equal by making a standard wage, no matter what kind of, or lack of work that they have? You know, $20/hour for everyone, both the college grads, and the people who dropped out in 9th grade.
You sit here and cry "fasicsm" all the while insulting people like me who do the best we can in life, and telling us how inhumane we are for trying to be successful on our own accord. Here I am back in college trying to improve my employability so I can be successful, and you tell me that when I become successful, I have to support some drug-addicted high school dropout who fucked his own life up, as if I'm the one who told him not to get a job.
Don't compare me and mine to Nazi Germany, asshole. (My family is from East Prussia, by the way.)
How about: "I am a research geologiest and have to drive for hundreds of miles in areas that don't exactly have maintained roads. If I don't have a pickup or SUV how the fsck am I supposed to get there?"
Think not? My fiance is almost done with her degree in geology, and we DO have need to go to places like that.
Furthermore: it takes energy to separate and store (compress) hydrogen. Since hydrogen doesn't occur naturally in usable quantities from the start, it cannot support itself (thermodynamics laws and such.)
Thus, you need a source of higher energy density that is readily available, and there are only a few sources like that: hydroelectric power, coal, oil, natural gas, radioactive elements, and wood. Wind and solar power are neither efficient, nor have the energy density to compete. I saw a wind generation area on the Columbia River in Washington yesterday. I haven't seen a natural-gas fired power generation plant that spanned an area ten miles long! I've also seen the solar plants near Barstow, California. Huge amounts of area are taken.
Consequently, you just shift the pollution source elsewhere. Just like electric cars. You shift the pollution source to the power plant.
The ONLY energy solution that will satisfy all environmental issues is complete reversal back to pre-fire technology.
Re:Shooting them down? I think there is a treaty..
on
Space Wars
·
· Score: 2
I couldn't have amde it more clear and concise than that.
It really seems silly that we'd entered a treaty where we are not allowed to defend ourselves in a particular way.
"No sir, you aren't allowed to wear a bullet-proof vest."
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh I see :)
How the hell did that happen?
I used to be (actually, the Reserver PERSCOM reminded me that I still am) a 13F.
Field Artillery lends dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl.
Don't forget: "God fights on the side with the best Artillery." -- Napoleon III
From one artilleryman to another.
BORDER! BORDER! BORDER!
and continues to allow the US to operate military bases on British soil
Could that be thanks for us allowing "great" Britain's very existence?
Or perhaps we should have taken it over in 1812...
Maybe we should have let the Nazis bomb England until the island sank, in the 1940's, without one bit of assistance.
How about not funding terrorism in Norther Ireland? That would be a good start. Cheap to implement, too...
Why don't the British-descent imperialists in Northern Ireland go home to "great" Britain and leave the Irish at peace?
A cheap solution to the problem in Northern Ireland, don't you think?
If you must point fingers, try pointing them sowhere besides the U.S., and you might find yourself more correct.
I think the real problem is Canadians entering the U.S. from Canada. :)
I'm kidding.
If you are in B.C. then your accent is surely as neutral as the U.S. Pacific Northwest.
Speaking of customs and such, I've noticed that when I come back into the U.S. they ask me just a few questions:
1. "Are you all U.S. citizens?"
If yes, go to question 3.
2a. "No? Okay, what citizenships do you hold?"
2b. "Are any of you dual-citezenship, and if so, where?"
3. "Are you transporting controlled substances, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, or any items in quantity subject to duty?"
"Thanks, have a nice day."
But, going into Canada:
"Can I see some identification?"
"Where are you going?"
"What are you planning to do?"
"How long do you plan on being in Canada?"
"Which border point do you plan for you return?"
"Do you have any firearms?"
"Could you pull over here. We are going to do a 'random' search on your vehicle."
So tell me, is the reverse true for Canadians? Do our customs grill you over for your entire vacation plans and searching your vehicle far more often than should statistically be done? Or, is it just your customs being jerks?
www.ornocall.com
Hmmm... you're right. I'll officially strike that one from my list.
Having had some training in swordfighting, I doubt I'd be saying much.
:)
Oh come now... I've had some training in swordfighting too, and I *love* Princess Bride-style conversation during swordplay, don't you?
I'll take your recommendation on AOTC. Though I still think that's gotta be the lamest name it could have. "The Clone War" would have been much better.
The simple fact is, he is not as creative as he once was. (If he truly wrote Ep IV-VI.) He is desperately trying to capitalize on Star Wars again, and is grasping at straws.
The original Star Wars trilogy was so good because it didn't use cliche, didn't have a bunch of well-known actors, and had some things that were fairly inconceivable.
I haven't seen II yet, but in I he has done the following:
1. Turned the force into a scientifically measurable thing. (Mitochondria^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H midi-chlorians) This destroys the mythico-religious symbolism, which was damned important in the later episodes.
2. Changed Obi-wan's master. In IV his master was Yoda. In I it was Qui-gon. Hmmm.
3. The movies don't even *look* related. How is Lucas going to explain the change in spacecraft design from I and II to IV-VI? The nice thing about SW was that the spacecraft were very polygon-oriented in design, not curvaceous. It looked more *real* compared to modern technology.
4. The dialog in the fight scenes in IV-VI made the fights more "human"... it gave the fights meaning instead of just fighting for the fighting. There wasn't any of this in I.
5. Obi-wan was humble in IV, and it seemed in the original trilogy, the example of a Jedi was a quiet, thoughtful warrior. In I, the Jedi were arrogant, and violence was the first choice, rather than using problem-solving thought process. There was not much "I don't want to fight" and a lot of "I'm going to kick your fscking ass."
6. Jar-Jar Binks. Enough said.There lies the problems. Lucas should have let fans create the prequels. I guarantee they would have done a better job.
Why use big words when diminutive ones will suffice?
bend.com is notorious for this. Worse, the editor changes the articles and thus makes the already-posted comments irrelevant or complaints seem unfounded (or stupid.)
I've exchanged messages with the editor, and he won't budge. A lot of us have mentioned it, but no changes are going to take place, as far as I know.
That's the wonderful thing about having a good ISP, and friends and family who don't use Outlook. (Friends mostly use Linux, family mostly uses Netscape or Hotmail... I'm trying to convert the Hotmail people to something else.)
To date, I have never received an e-mail virus or worm.
Now, back in the day when I did a lot of floppy exchange... well, I saw several virii "in the wild."
And my whole point is that we limit all kinds of things to minors already, not necessarily speech.
The right to vote is certainly a limitation on free speech when it is denied, as it is.
As far as "anyone can buy *any* music" well, not here... if it's got a parental warning sticker, good luck buying it if you are under 17. I don't know if it's industry-voluntary or local law, but you can't.
The level design, the method of expression, the ambience portrayed, the textures that make it realistic. The levels in say... Doom, are akin to sculpture. Each one is the product of creative process.
That makes it art, and therefore freely expressable.
However... limiting access to kids under 17... we already limit alcohol, cigarettes, porno mags, music, voting, etc. If anything, sometimes this is warranted. Most kids could get their parents to buy one of those games, anyway.
Mostly I was just pissed off that anyone would dare call the U.S. fascist. My family is from East Prussia, and one of my relatives was Hitler's chief-of-staff for the military. (A soldier, not a Nazi... I've read his autobiography and other texts.) But, people don't make the distinction of oath of service one's country, and believing the national regime's propaganda. So, as a result, I grew up being called a "Nazi" as soon as that came to light in a class in grade school. So, you see the basis for being offended. After that, it was tirade.
:)
Let me clarify my stance on the CBDTPA:
For the record, I agree with you about the CBDTPA. I don't like the law, and have written letters against it. I agree that there IS a problem with piracy, however.
I used to be a pirate. To be honest, it was mostly because I couldn't afford the stuff I wanted. I would have paid for it otherwise. Then I discovered Linux.
The main reason I brought up content control is that the original poster seemed to think that ANY copyright system of any nature was wrong, and limiting free speech. (freedom of speech and expression is already limited, and I don't have a problem with reasonable limitations... yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre, for instance.)
I agree with a non-renewable copyright system. A shorter-time patent system that doesn't include software (reimplentation is fine for all things, and software is covered in copyright) or naturally-occuring substances (DNA).
The big problem with patenting software and algorithms, is that with patents on physical objects, one generally has the chance to invent something that gets the same (or similar) result through different means, at least for processes. That is not true of software, and getting the same result violates the patent. That is just plain wrong.
Anyway, thanks for listening to my point of view, and seeing past the way I put things. That makes you a lot more respectable than most people.
I'm not totally up on American law, but I'm pretty certain that your constitution guarantees many freedoms (such as freedom of speech). If the CBDTPA is just an extension to the DMCA then it is anti free-speech. Isn't that your first amendment?
... acting as a charity (and handing out money for people to go to school without any guarantees they'll get it back is nothing more than a backhanded charity) and not want it being a charity.
I don't like the way the law is written, either, and I don't like governent regulation of technology, however... ARTISTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTROL THE FRUITS OF THEIR LABOR!!!
Believe it or not, it takes real thought and work to produce music and other artistic expressions. The creations are each unique. The bullshit argument that "the people who copy wouldn't have paid for it anyway" doesn't fly. Things distributed in limited quantity have value. The mere act of copying devalues music, just like a counterfeit painting devalues the original.
No, it is not a charity. Sure, there are some people that screw the system, but most do not. Like any other lender, the government expects to be paid back, with interest. They will do everything they can to get it back, including collections actions, witholding of tax refunds, and civil lawsuits. That's not the same as handing out the money for free.
I am assuming you think the 9th grader has an easier life. Hate to break it to you but if he gets a job it will not be easy. People say all the time "Gas pumpers and golden arches flippers have it easy". Well, if so why not do their job? . I know why. Becuase the job sucks. Its physically demanding, or mentally annoying. Either way most everyone who graduates college is looking for the cushy, easy way out with a 9-5 desk job pushing paper.
I NEVER said it was easy. I have been a burger flipper at McDonalds, and it paid the bills. Within six months I was a manager. When I decided I didn't want to do it anymore, I went into the Army. Partly so I could afford more education, and partly to gain more work experience. When I left the Army, I had a job within two weeks. It paid a lot less, but it was still honest wages. When I got laid off from that job, I got another job immediately, again, honest wages. When I became unemployed last year, and could NOT find a job, I went back to school.
What I have a problem with, is that while there are people who genuinely need help, most people "out on the streets" CHOOSE to be there, because they aren't willing to do what it takes to make them successful. They won't go to places like Goodwill or the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, or any number of employment charities. (That I routinly give money to so they can continue to do so.) They won't go back to school, and they won't flip burgers. Not because they can't, because they won't.
You can bring up the point that they might be physically or mentally disabled. My school employs about 250 people with varying problems like downs-syndrome, confinement to wheelchairs, and other disabilities. For people with acute sociopathic disorders that prevent them from working, there are institutions that can and will take care of them.
The simple fact is, that the original post pissed me off by basically saying that people who are successful are directly responsible for people who fail, and made the implication that it is the government's responsibility to take from the successful and give to the unsuccessful.
Perhaps you're just confused on the meaning of "fascism". It doesn't have anything to do with work, you know.
I know damn well what fascism is. Our country is a far cry from it. My problem was, the original poster was calling the U.S. fascist, all the same advocating socialism-near-communism. The specific comment "a social policy that leaves people hungry, homeless, undereducated and in poor health" is what pissed me off.
People are hungry because they choose to be, either by choosing not to work, or by choosing not to go to one of the established charities who would love to help them.
People are homeless for the same reason. In the United States, if you are a high school graduate under age 35, I know someone who is constantly hiring. It's called the Army, and they have 212 ways for you to be a soldier. And I'm NOT a recruiter, just a happy customer. They'll give you a home, a job, and a paycheck.
People are uneducated because they choose not to take advantage of the aforementioned student loans, or they drop out of high school.
People are in poor health because they smoke, eat junk food all the time, and don't bother to plan for health care.
All choices for most of those people. For the relatively few who need help, the help is available.
The original poster was trying to imply that our "fascist" society forces them into the position they are in. For most of those people, they put themselves there.
And that's where the last comment I made that you said you didn't know where it came from fits in, though I could have stated it better.
No, it isn't. It has to be paid back, with interest. If it is not paid back, they will send it to collections, which will be punishment. They will also take it back from any tax refund, and probably take it to court.
That's not the same as money that does not need to be paid back.
Furthermore, one could treat school, and becoming a better benefit to society, as an occupation. At least it's a form of work. It certainly isn't "free" money.
Of course. We should have kept recounting the Florida election until it went the other way.
I doubt anyone here sees President Bush as a god. Hate to burst your bubble.
Now, you make an accusation that the legislative body is disregarding the Constitution by passing laws to promote and protect big corporate interests. While I don't disagree about the nature of the laws, I do question your assertion that they are violating the Constitution. Which part?
I will only touch on one other thing you brought up, as I am tired. Social policy. Well, I'm a firm believer that there are plenty of charities out there, and the government doesn't need to be one of them.
I can name a dozen charities that are successful and really help people. I can only name one government program that did the same, and it no longer exists. (the CCC.) I still haven't figured out where people like you get the idea that you should strongarm people like me into giving to beggars on the street like the one who sits at the stoplight a few blocks from here. I happen to know for a fact that he could go to Goodwill or the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and they would help, along with most churches, and many non-religious organizations. Why make the government responsible for a task that is already being done?
Maybe we should just hand them money and make people like me do the work?
You really touched a nerve in me tonight.
You know, I've become unemployed in the past (living in the state with the top unemployment rate in the country right now) and you know what? I went back to school to make myself more qualified. The government is more than willing to loan almost anyone money to go to school. But then again, if you aren't motivated to work (or even try to get a job), why would you bother to put the time into school?
Then again, why do anything at all when the government is making the people who actually do the work pay your way through life? Hey, spit out a few kids and get even more, right?
Hey, why don't we make everyone equal by making a standard wage, no matter what kind of, or lack of work that they have? You know, $20/hour for everyone, both the college grads, and the people who dropped out in 9th grade.
You sit here and cry "fasicsm" all the while insulting people like me who do the best we can in life, and telling us how inhumane we are for trying to be successful on our own accord. Here I am back in college trying to improve my employability so I can be successful, and you tell me that when I become successful, I have to support some drug-addicted high school dropout who fucked his own life up, as if I'm the one who told him not to get a job.
Don't compare me and mine to Nazi Germany, asshole. (My family is from East Prussia, by the way.)
You offend me.
Look at CowboyNeal... now there's a whore who will do anything! (watch at the polls)
On a side note, at least one arm of the executive branch doesn't like the CBDTPA... maybe that'll mean a veto if it gets to the Prez.
Keep OPEC fat and happy: Buy an SUV.
Oh yeah?
How about: "I am a research geologiest and have to drive for hundreds of miles in areas that don't exactly have maintained roads. If I don't have a pickup or SUV how the fsck am I supposed to get there?"
Think not? My fiance is almost done with her degree in geology, and we DO have need to go to places like that.
I'd just like to complain about the headline. It says that the U.S. is considering using passport as a "national ID."
The immediate description says that they _might_ use it to authenticate everyone who accesses government services online.
These are two VERY different things. So, which is it?
Oh, look. They might just use it as (it was designed as) an authentication system!
If I'm not mistaken, plenty of entities are considering that, not just the government.
ATTN: Michael. Don't sensationalize stories. It's lame.
I'm not a fan of M$ or national ID, either, but this is a far cry from a national ID system.
I thought Microsoft and Unisys had all the answers for high-performance computing.
Is why hydrogen isn't as good as fossil fuels.
Furthermore: it takes energy to separate and store (compress) hydrogen. Since hydrogen doesn't occur naturally in usable quantities from the start, it cannot support itself (thermodynamics laws and such.)
Thus, you need a source of higher energy density that is readily available, and there are only a few sources like that: hydroelectric power, coal, oil, natural gas, radioactive elements, and wood.
Wind and solar power are neither efficient, nor have the energy density to compete. I saw a wind generation area on the Columbia River in Washington yesterday. I haven't seen a natural-gas fired power generation plant that spanned an area ten miles long! I've also seen the solar plants near Barstow, California. Huge amounts of area are taken.
Consequently, you just shift the pollution source elsewhere. Just like electric cars. You shift the pollution source to the power plant.
The ONLY energy solution that will satisfy all environmental issues is complete reversal back to pre-fire technology.
I couldn't have amde it more clear and concise than that.
It really seems silly that we'd entered a treaty where we are not allowed to defend ourselves in a particular way.
"No sir, you aren't allowed to wear a bullet-proof vest."