Google is presumably not subject to graft if you are referring to the results of searches done using their software (in any ostensible way).
Oops, Google's cooperation with China totally slipped my mind. Google is removing the links from their search result pages that China is blocking to prevent their being viewed by the people of China.
Presumably that isn't happening here in Usia and the rest of the world, but who knows outside of the Google programmers/admins?
Doesn't sound like speculation, sounds like you're presenting it as stated fact.
um.
Jack Brubaker of the Lancaster New Era got a modest scoop from on high. Our President had requested a meeting with an Amish woman who knitted him a quilt, and the result was an impromptu Amish get-together:
"Bush had never met an Amish person before, and he was clearly smitten with the group. He chatted with the women, and he tried on one of the men's straw hats. When he asked for their vote in November, one man told him that while not all members of the Amish church vote, the group would pray for him. According to one witness, the president teared up. Bush closed the session by reportedly testifying to having a very close relationship to God. 'I trust God speaks through me,' he said. 'Without that, I couldn't do my job.'"
and
The Israeli paper Ha'aretz reported last year that the President said to then-Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, "
God told me to strike Al Qaeda and I struck, and then he instructed me to strike Saddam, which I did."
and
According to Paul Harris of the British Observer, "Bush said to James Robinson: 'I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but
God wants me to do it.'"
I got those with just a short visit to the HNN. You could probably do better if you wanted.
And you ignore the fact that 1. Sadaam believed he had WMDs. 2. The UN believed that Sadaam had WMDs. 3. France believed that Sadaam had WMDs.
No I'm not ignoring it. Belief is based on what evidence you can muster to support your suspicion.
Please replace "suspect" for every player outside of Saddam (since suspicion has a negative connotation that I don't think attributable to Saddam given the circumstances.)
Suspicion is an insufficient motive for the invasion of a sovereign nation, and a nation that does attack and invade another nation merely based on suspicion will quickly find itself in a very hostile world. Verification is more important than Bush's "belief".
If Bush really wanted to put Saddam's toes to the fire he had everything he needed within the context of UN involvement in Iraq to ensure that no WMD would be created and any WMD found would be removed.
He chose to act alone. And now he desires to escape responsibility for this folly. And he wants us to do it some more. No.
Honestly, you seem to be taking a large leap of logic going from him declining to answer the question to saying that he feels he's God's mouthpiece.
That's not an accurate representation of my argument. I said it wasn't respectable of him to consider himself not answerable to us. Kerry and Nadar might have assumed that the question wasn't even directed at them since it is fairly obvious what's on everyone's mind these days.
I did add a little color that perhaps wasn't needed, though. I wanted to put it in because he reminds me so very much of the opposite of pious and god-fearing.
I don't get it. He's been caught in the lie, both he and his administration, and given the gravity of his deed, the invasion of a sovereign nation pre-empting functional investigation by the UN, against the better judgment of our strongest allies, he seeks to absolve himself of responsibility for the horrific deed (not to mention the policy of torture which was in fact legallyy investigated by Ashcroft/Rumsfeld to work around difficulties that would hold them directly accountable (and ignoring the moral terpitude of the deed)) he claims he "made the best decision he could at the time" while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge the mistake in a public way! He will not face the fact he made a mistake and uses an excuse I would not accept even from a child.
He is not a man of integrity. He ignores the fact that 1. proof about WMD was not in hand, 2. The UN had a tight leash on Hussein's regime, despite all this talk of him balking at every move, and 3. He was doing everything he could to ignore any indication Iraq was not imminently capable of attacking the US.
That is not integrity, that is a bull-headed stubborn refusal to acknowledge the attack was unjustifiable.
Now pile on top of that all the "benefits" gained by the Friends of Bush and you begin to suspect what the real motives were when Bush lied to us to get us and congress to agree to attack a sovereign nation.
That is not a man of integrity, that is a man with many occult and avaricious motives.
It was otherwise a mistake to allow me and everyone else speculate as to why he would refuse to state a position, and considering the alternative, that "he's not answering because he doesn't consider himself answerable to the likes of us", I would enjoy responding to someone with an interpretation more favorable to Bush.
Seems to me that Kerry avoided the question altogether as well. He just opened his mouth and let crap flow forth as normal. To me, President Bush is to be more respected in this situation.
I agree he avoided the question, but I think what he says shows a lot more wisdom than anything Bush has been able to muster.
Bush declined to answer, how how do you find that a respectable position. He's effectively saying he's not answerable to anyone but God and that's simply not true.
Yep. I wish someone would help out here. Not someone from the Bush side of the fence, though, as they seem to believe everything Bush says about Kerry, which is mostly severe distortion of fact.
I can't imagine Kerry never made a mistake even he could see.
He's in favor of the PATRIOT act minus some provisions he hasn't stated (in a forum I've visited). I think that's a mistake but he obviously doesn't.
his leadership style is like that of a religious organization... no matter what, never admit you are wrong
Well, by Bush's own admission, God speaks through him. And God is perfect, infallible. Bush admitting he made a mistake would be a heretical position to take and he is a pious man, after all.
re you saying that if bill gates wanted to spend $500,000,000.00 in advertising on google, amazon, ebay, msn, slashdot, etc., that you'd be able to match him to express _your_ opinion?
Google is presumably not subject to graft if you are referring to the results of searches done using their software (in any ostensible way).
As for the rest, they are all subject to the mitigating effect people's affinity for personal blogs. Compared to whatever banners MS puts up and however much their marketing campaigns spend, popular discourse has considerable power if you visit the opinion sites. I use that as a model to assess the power of Bill's billions to influence opinion.
However, I have to admit, I'm immune to "infotainment" of the big networks, since I don't have a tv and don't make a habit of going to FOX, MSN, ABC, CNN, or whatever. I let discussions guide my searches.
If you don't do that you are more easily influenced by what the networks choose not to show you.
I agree about your controls on the candidates selection of domains insofar as they don't take those their opponents would have. I don't think, though, that any individual or grassroots organization should be restricted. And that's where the confusion and subterfuge begins, precisely where the individual has a chance to be heard.
Complicated. So: I don't think the FEC should get involved where it is unclear and could restrict the individuals right to be heard with as strong a voice as the Republicrats'.
That's true: the secrecy of the ballot has been extended to cover the tallying mechanism. Disaster.
That being said, if the system were open source and included some kind of hashing mechanism to verify the binary is a product of the certified code, and the certification rules for the hardware were more strictly obeyed, evoting could be plausible.
None of this is possible with Diebold, or ES&S, or whatever.
The same could be argued, then, of people who have cars, or of people who can read/write, or a host of other conditions that you would argue that make it "easier" for one group to vote
That wouldn't be a valid argument, to say the problem is systemic so why shouldn't we exacerbate it. Sheesh.
It provides a working example of the patent as a clear indication of what it does, and by so doing,
It puts the engineer/inventor back in the drivers seat rather than the patent lawyer.
By so doing it evades the "overbroad" patent, but that will also be levied against it as a criticism: it also is a stark limitation on the potential utility of the patent and can be used to restrict the patents scope.
I also think that because of that its power could also be eroded by the patent lawyers and it could be equally subject to attacks as the current system has been.
Therefore, other than the benefit of seeing the working example of the patent and being subject to searches by the engineer, it is of marginal benefit. There are many other factors contributing to the patent problem. They must be addressed as well:
Patents are granted frivolously.
Litigation is heavily weighted in favor of large corporations; in fact, individuals and small companies simply can't litigate.
It is almost impossible for an innovator to know if there is a patent already covering his/her innovation.
Patents can be used to block use of an innovation rather than encourage its use.
Holders of "submarine" patents can deliberately lurk, predator-like, waiting for honest, unsuspecting innovators to invest huge amounts of time in already-patented technology. Straightforward and fair changes to patent law would completely change the landscape of patent litigation and innovation.
This proposal would have a marginal effect on some of these issues, but the onus of discovery is still on the public, and the individual developer. More than this suggestion is needed.
it would be infinitly better for these companies to release their patents into the public domain
They would still have to worry about litigation, and you are asking them to give up a weapons useful in defense of potential patent litigation directed against them.
Until software patents have been removed or brought under control, patent portfolios and the threat of a countersuit are the best defense against patent claim assertion.
That doesn't seem like they are going to fight once litigation is started. That words leads me to believe that they would start litigation if anyone even brought up the idea that their IP was being used w/o permission in the kernel.
Red Hat sought a clarification of SCOX's copyright as a pre-emptive measure against the good grounds they felt they have that SCOX was going to initiate a suit against them. This is the same thing, but Red Hat didn't act unilaterally, they thought there was a very good chance they would end up in court with SCOX based on McBride's palaver to the press.
Novell is merely recognizing that may be a necessary measure for them, as well. In fact, SCOX did sue them in anticipation of such a pre-emptive move by Novell in such a way they could still deny there was a controversy regarding copyright ownership of Unix SysV (which would, as has been shown at Groklaw erode their multiple cases against various Linux users, present their shareholders with evidence they didn't have sufficient control over the copyrights that were central to their fiscal plan and the justification for investment in SCOX's legal plans, and is the reason they sued for "Slander of Title" instead of something actually legally tractable.)
I don't believe you have demonstrated anything other than what Kerry's been claiming all along: He voted to grant authority to Bush to do something should it be proved necessary and Bush abused the authority given to him.
Meaning (for myself, as I'll clarify in a moment), I'll continue to buy CDs when they are not produced by an overweening industry that arrogantly and without regard to my rights inserts itself between me and the artist.
I don't want to deny the artist his due, and I support the arts to the extent that I do not support the **IA. So it's indy all the way for me.
In addition, as has been clarified many times, it's infringement, not stealing.
And, to comment on your "work for free", musicians enjoy numerous ways in which they may gain remuneration for their music. It's not necessary to "work for free" when you choose to listen to one of the free downloads of They Might Be Giants, they actually gain in the transaction as well. This specious argument is being used by the **IA because it is emotionally convenient to them more than because it is true, and there is plenty of evidence to show that it is not. Why are you using it?
Just read the summary again and you'll see this isn't that major of a victory for P2P fans... all the RIAA has to do is file a "John Doe" lawsuit, and then Verizon will have to turn over the info so that the user is identified and dropped into the defendant's chair.
The decision asserts that due process is still a requirement of the constitution and the Judicial branch.
Who has ever implied it would render copyright infringement (not stealing, you can't steal something you bought, you can only infringe on the rights the holder has retained) legal?
Slashdot Mirror
Google is presumably not subject to graft if you are referring to the results of searches done using their software (in any ostensible way).
Oops, Google's cooperation with China totally slipped my mind. Google is removing the links from their search result pages that China is blocking to prevent their being viewed by the people of China.
Presumably that isn't happening here in Usia and the rest of the world, but who knows outside of the Google programmers/admins?
um.
andandI got those with just a short visit to the HNN. You could probably do better if you wanted.
Well, I want a trial and investigation. And real consequences, like PMITA federal prison.
And maybe some more legal responsibility, and transparency into the administration.
And a proportional vote with instant-runoff.
And a bicycle.
And you ignore the fact that 1. Sadaam believed he had WMDs. 2. The UN believed that Sadaam had WMDs. 3. France believed that Sadaam had WMDs.
No I'm not ignoring it. Belief is based on what evidence you can muster to support your suspicion.
Please replace "suspect" for every player outside of Saddam (since suspicion has a negative connotation that I don't think attributable to Saddam given the circumstances.)
Suspicion is an insufficient motive for the invasion of a sovereign nation, and a nation that does attack and invade another nation merely based on suspicion will quickly find itself in a very hostile world. Verification is more important than Bush's "belief".
If Bush really wanted to put Saddam's toes to the fire he had everything he needed within the context of UN involvement in Iraq to ensure that no WMD would be created and any WMD found would be removed.
He chose to act alone. And now he desires to escape responsibility for this folly. And he wants us to do it some more. No.
Honestly, you seem to be taking a large leap of logic going from him declining to answer the question to saying that he feels he's God's mouthpiece.
That's not an accurate representation of my argument. I said it wasn't respectable of him to consider himself not answerable to us. Kerry and Nadar might have assumed that the question wasn't even directed at them since it is fairly obvious what's on everyone's mind these days.
I did add a little color that perhaps wasn't needed, though. I wanted to put it in because he reminds me so very much of the opposite of pious and god-fearing.
Perhaps a post-Presidency approval system, and if the person fails to get 50% approval, no pension, no perks, etc.
That's not a system promoting responsibility and ethics (other than what the vote is supposed to be already.) That is a demo-poll.
I don't get it. He's been caught in the lie, both he and his administration, and given the gravity of his deed, the invasion of a sovereign nation pre-empting functional investigation by the UN, against the better judgment of our strongest allies, he seeks to absolve himself of responsibility for the horrific deed (not to mention the policy of torture which was in fact legallyy investigated by Ashcroft/Rumsfeld to work around difficulties that would hold them directly accountable (and ignoring the moral terpitude of the deed)) he claims he "made the best decision he could at the time" while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge the mistake in a public way! He will not face the fact he made a mistake and uses an excuse I would not accept even from a child.
He is not a man of integrity. He ignores the fact that 1. proof about WMD was not in hand, 2. The UN had a tight leash on Hussein's regime, despite all this talk of him balking at every move, and 3. He was doing everything he could to ignore any indication Iraq was not imminently capable of attacking the US.
That is not integrity, that is a bull-headed stubborn refusal to acknowledge the attack was unjustifiable.
Now pile on top of that all the "benefits" gained by the Friends of Bush and you begin to suspect what the real motives were when Bush lied to us to get us and congress to agree to attack a sovereign nation.
That is not a man of integrity, that is a man with many occult and avaricious motives.
Hey, I was just speculating on motive. Come on.
It was otherwise a mistake to allow me and everyone else speculate as to why he would refuse to state a position, and considering the alternative, that "he's not answering because he doesn't consider himself answerable to the likes of us", I would enjoy responding to someone with an interpretation more favorable to Bush.
Seems to me that Kerry avoided the question altogether as well. He just opened his mouth and let crap flow forth as normal. To me, President Bush is to be more respected in this situation.
I agree he avoided the question, but I think what he says shows a lot more wisdom than anything Bush has been able to muster.
Bush declined to answer, how how do you find that a respectable position. He's effectively saying he's not answerable to anyone but God and that's simply not true.
Yep. I wish someone would help out here. Not someone from the Bush side of the fence, though, as they seem to believe everything Bush says about Kerry, which is mostly severe distortion of fact.
I can't imagine Kerry never made a mistake even he could see.
He's in favor of the PATRIOT act minus some provisions he hasn't stated (in a forum I've visited). I think that's a mistake but he obviously doesn't.
his leadership style is like that of a religious organization... no matter what, never admit you are wrong
Well, by Bush's own admission, God speaks through him. And God is perfect, infallible. Bush admitting he made a mistake would be a heretical position to take and he is a pious man, after all.
You silly little pinhead troll:
Republican + Democrat == Republicrat
I would rather have someone intelligent and fairly able to be responsible for his actions.
And someone interested in the people's interests.
re you saying that if bill gates wanted to spend $500,000,000.00 in advertising on google, amazon, ebay, msn, slashdot, etc., that you'd be able to match him to express _your_ opinion?
Google is presumably not subject to graft if you are referring to the results of searches done using their software (in any ostensible way).
As for the rest, they are all subject to the mitigating effect people's affinity for personal blogs. Compared to whatever banners MS puts up and however much their marketing campaigns spend, popular discourse has considerable power if you visit the opinion sites. I use that as a model to assess the power of Bill's billions to influence opinion.
However, I have to admit, I'm immune to "infotainment" of the big networks, since I don't have a tv and don't make a habit of going to FOX, MSN, ABC, CNN, or whatever. I let discussions guide my searches.
If you don't do that you are more easily influenced by what the networks choose not to show you.
The rules have to be fair.
I agree about your controls on the candidates selection of domains insofar as they don't take those their opponents would have. I don't think, though, that any individual or grassroots organization should be restricted. And that's where the confusion and subterfuge begins, precisely where the individual has a chance to be heard.
Complicated. So: I don't think the FEC should get involved where it is unclear and could restrict the individuals right to be heard with as strong a voice as the Republicrats'.
How do they expect to regulate something that is beyond huge?
I could be wrong but after a scanning the article it appears the FEC just wants to extend spending limits to the WWW.
How the Republicrats can pervert that to maintain their monopoly on the control of governance wasn't discussed, though, so let the speculation begin!
gwbushsucks.cx or similar (made-up URL, not a real site as far as I am aware) might be hard to trace to an identifiable political body
I see no problems with that, so long as everyone is able to do it.
The only threat the printed word has is that it can be controlled, and that's just what the FEC is proposing.
That's true: the secrecy of the ballot has been extended to cover the tallying mechanism. Disaster.
That being said, if the system were open source and included some kind of hashing mechanism to verify the binary is a product of the certified code, and the certification rules for the hardware were more strictly obeyed, evoting could be plausible.
None of this is possible with Diebold, or ES&S, or whatever.
The same could be argued, then, of people who have cars, or of people who can read/write, or a host of other conditions that you would argue that make it "easier" for one group to vote
That wouldn't be a valid argument, to say the problem is systemic so why shouldn't we exacerbate it. Sheesh.
- It provides a working example of the patent as a clear indication of what it does, and by so doing,
- It puts the engineer/inventor back in the drivers seat rather than the patent lawyer.
By so doing it evades the "overbroad" patent, but that will also be levied against it as a criticism: it also is a stark limitation on the potential utility of the patent and can be used to restrict the patents scope.I also think that because of that its power could also be eroded by the patent lawyers and it could be equally subject to attacks as the current system has been.
Therefore, other than the benefit of seeing the working example of the patent and being subject to searches by the engineer, it is of marginal benefit. There are many other factors contributing to the patent problem. They must be addressed as well:
- Patents are granted frivolously.
- Litigation is heavily weighted in favor of large corporations; in fact, individuals and small companies simply can't litigate.
- It is almost impossible for an innovator to know if there is a patent already covering his/her innovation.
- Patents can be used to block use of an innovation rather than encourage its use.
- Holders of "submarine" patents can deliberately lurk, predator-like, waiting for honest, unsuspecting innovators to invest huge amounts of time in already-patented technology. Straightforward and fair changes to patent law would completely change the landscape of patent litigation and innovation.
This proposal would have a marginal effect on some of these issues, but the onus of discovery is still on the public, and the individual developer. More than this suggestion is needed.a movie based on politics that really doesn't have a bias or an op-ed piece, and just around Election Day.
Yeah, we were in serious danger of holding our elected government officials responsible for their actions!
This should pull us off the trail, though. Whew!
it would be infinitly better for these companies to release their patents into the public domain
They would still have to worry about litigation, and you are asking them to give up a weapons useful in defense of potential patent litigation directed against them.
Until software patents have been removed or brought under control, patent portfolios and the threat of a countersuit are the best defense against patent claim assertion.
That doesn't seem like they are going to fight once litigation is started. That words leads me to believe that they would start litigation if anyone even brought up the idea that their IP was being used w/o permission in the kernel.
Red Hat sought a clarification of SCOX's copyright as a pre-emptive measure against the good grounds they felt they have that SCOX was going to initiate a suit against them. This is the same thing, but Red Hat didn't act unilaterally, they thought there was a very good chance they would end up in court with SCOX based on McBride's palaver to the press.
Novell is merely recognizing that may be a necessary measure for them, as well. In fact, SCOX did sue them in anticipation of such a pre-emptive move by Novell in such a way they could still deny there was a controversy regarding copyright ownership of Unix SysV (which would, as has been shown at Groklaw erode their multiple cases against various Linux users, present their shareholders with evidence they didn't have sufficient control over the copyrights that were central to their fiscal plan and the justification for investment in SCOX's legal plans, and is the reason they sued for "Slander of Title" instead of something actually legally tractable.)
That's all that might implies.
I don't believe you have demonstrated anything other than what Kerry's been claiming all along: He voted to grant authority to Bush to do something should it be proved necessary and Bush abused the authority given to him.
Let me modify the grandparent posts declaration:
I'll stop "stealing" when it is Libre.
Meaning (for myself, as I'll clarify in a moment), I'll continue to buy CDs when they are not produced by an overweening industry that arrogantly and without regard to my rights inserts itself between me and the artist.
I don't want to deny the artist his due, and I support the arts to the extent that I do not support the **IA. So it's indy all the way for me.
In addition, as has been clarified many times, it's infringement, not stealing.
And, to comment on your "work for free", musicians enjoy numerous ways in which they may gain remuneration for their music. It's not necessary to "work for free" when you choose to listen to one of the free downloads of They Might Be Giants, they actually gain in the transaction as well. This specious argument is being used by the **IA because it is emotionally convenient to them more than because it is true, and there is plenty of evidence to show that it is not. Why are you using it?
Just read the summary again and you'll see this isn't that major of a victory for P2P fans... all the RIAA has to do is file a "John Doe" lawsuit, and then Verizon will have to turn over the info so that the user is identified and dropped into the defendant's chair.
The decision asserts that due process is still a requirement of the constitution and the Judicial branch.
Who has ever implied it would render copyright infringement (not stealing, you can't steal something you bought, you can only infringe on the rights the holder has retained) legal?