Ahh, and Governor syllable never misspeaks? Second, if you read it in context, it is damn well clear what was meant. Like he really thinks anyone would be dumb enough to fall for such a trick. It's millions of times more probable that, to the extent that you can read it that way, he misspoke.
Don't get me started... but, sigh, you're right. It shows that Gore is too afraid of alienating the middle to actually think about it either, which is as bad as the Shrub.
I'd like to see some sort of argument showing me that the state has a compelling interest in this issue (and, while we're at it, on preventing people from smoking pot, etc.). So many policies are based on religious and etihcal views that ought not to be enforced on the populace as a whole, it's sad..
Why? In this age of better information and faster access to that information, our politicians will
be as naked as frogs for dissection in biology
The day may come. But I'm not so sure it will. Virtually nobody but a political junkie will do the research themselves, and this introduces intermediaries and, IMO, a vast potential for error.
Consider the Shrub's popularity; as far as I can see, it partially rests on the media's failure (in the general sense, obviously there are exceptions) to really look the guy over. Bush has declared certain subjects "out of bounds" (since when do the candidates write the rules?).
Al Gore is famous for "having claimed to invent the internet", and even a lot of the techno-savvy here seem to believe that (which is why it's no longer funny, not even as a joke). Yet the Shrub clearly claimed credit for laws he did not sign and even tried to veto (in the second debate), works off of anti-intellectualist sentiment (aw, Gore kept pushing Bush for answers, what a meanie), and so forth. Does the media bother to tear into Shrub for that?
(Note: I'm not saying anything about your preference here, I'm making a point about the dissection of candidates)
The problem is, no matter how savvy and info-hungry some of us are, the vast majority don't care that much. They won't do their research, they'll rely on the media (however little they say they trust them... go on, how many out there know the details behind the things I've mentioned here?) There hasn't been *nearly* enough scrutiny of the right sort on the Shrub; whether that's due to media mendacity or just a sort of accident is in a way beside the point, because not everybody can keep up with all the info out there.
Yes. Awfully inclusive of him isn't it? And note atheists don't get a nod, either.
Of course, the guy's logic on this and related issues sucks (e.g. he apparently holds that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry; presumably this is based on his religious views, 'cos he sure as hell didn't give a secular justification for it; and when he did, it was the tired old "homosexuals shouldn't have special rights" line, to which the proper response is... huh?)
I am pointing out that Bush has a double standard. Really, I don't think it's a big deal that he called somebody a name. But 'dubya' is the one who's insisted character is an issue, and when he's called on character issues (certainly, he's presented himself as a good Christian; but notice he didn't apologize for the comment, which is the least one should expect out of a Christian.) he stonewalls or claims it's an 'out of bounds' question. That's weasel behavior.
That's what lack of integrity is.
I'm surprised that so many Slashdotters actually believe and trust Al Gore!
Better we should trust the guy who claims credit for laws that were (a) passed before he got the governorship (patient's bill of rights) and/or (b) he tried to veto (hate crimes laws).
Or would that be Governor Integrity, whose response to questions about differences between his public face and private behavior (the cocaine use allegations, the "major league asshole" comment -- both valid challenges) is to refuse to talk and say the question is "out of bounds". Wow, there's a guy who applies principles fairly.
Check the high-silica composition of thine own dwelling.
Nice thought n'all, but Nader wasn't able to get on the ballot in a lot of states. Moreover, in at least one of those states (North Carolina), he's not even a valid write-in. So a vote for Nader, in North Carolina, really *is* a wasted vote, modulo the protest factor.
Of course, this is just one of those laws the major parties have drafted to protect the citizenry from having choices...
Why need the thing that created the pinhead be *intelligent*?
What created that thing? If it doesn't itself need a creator, then why does the pinhead?
Even if you go for the 'intelligence' option, it['s not an intelligence we can understand very easily, so the hypothesis comes down to the same practical point either way.
The normal interpretation includes the idea that if you're married in one state, ALL states have to
recognize this.
Hmm, I may have a misapprehension somewhere, but I thought the DoMA was basically an exercise of Congress' right to "prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved", i.e. the DoMA doesn't say "gay marriage is illegal", it says "a gay marriage valid in Hawaii need not be recognized by any other state."
Yeah, it's tricky, but it's pretty clear that some USian laws (can you say "Defense of Marriage Act" ?) are based on what's popular (well, a perception of what's popular), rather than on the basic thrust of the Constitution (which is not to say they're unconstitutional, much as it chagrins me).
A free society is *not* based on "majority rule," and I'd love it if people would see that democracy need not be based on this simplistic and utterly wrong idea. If elected representatives were more worried about doing the right thing than getting re-elected, the people might have more respect for them. At least Istook said the right thing here (I know nothing else about this person, so I don't want to pass judgment).
The fact that you think
inheritance should be outlawed scares me.
/me blinks... Um, the original poster said no such thing. Read it again. The endorsement of the estate tax was justified, the poster felt, by the fact that some form of inheritance is justified.
You are saying that people can't use their money in any way they want.
How easy is it to amass wealth without a society (laws, infrastructure, etc.) ? The wealth wouldn't exist without the society, so it's a more difficult situation than your post suggests.
The notion that the republican and democratic parties are basically the same probably stems from the fact that no
matter which side is currently in power, American life seems to go on pretty much the same. So while there may be
differences on a number of issues, the fact is that for a large percentage of the population (for whom those issues are
not such big issues), they really might just as well *be* the same parties.
Hmmm... one of the interesting things is that it's usually the case that *neither* side is "in power," when you take Congress into account.
Anyhow, the lack of difference in your life (going with the point, which I don't actually accept but since I don't have the energy to provide details, I won't challenge it) might stem from the fact that those at the top of the political heap are at at least one, usually more, removes from your daily life. The person running your local post office has to do with how efficiently your mail service is, same for your local zoning board, etc. These guys can start wars, etc., but they can't make the trains run on time... at least not under the current system =
Guffaw Ever notice how much the anti-gun nuts love to compare firearms with male genitals? And in the same
breath point out how BAD guns are? Gun == penis == bad. Gag. Which is worse, man-hating-women or men who
wish they were dickless?
Nice troll... the logic's just bad enough and the language just inflammatory enough for me to give you THREE troll points.
Gimme some leeway on the dates, and apologies for any untoward references this might make people think of, but it's a fairly clear-cut historical example.
1860 (or so) -Marx and Engels start formulating their views
1880 or so - the _Communist Manifesto_ is written
1916 or so -- the Bolshevik Revolution starts
So, Lenin and co. started the Bolshevik revolution... but it had its roots much earlier.
I'd be suspicious when somone in a company says "doesn't want do alienate the community by making it look bad". How would
helping make any one look bad?
I think it might be related to the remark about benchmarks -- Linux advocates and corp.s (such as Redhat, who funded development the "Tux" webserver) wouldn't want to be shown up by IBM when the results IBM returned showed the original benchmarks to have been overblown.
Perhaps I'm being obtuse here, but why would a weak power supply bork Windows and not Linux, unless it was bound to break something sooner or later and it was Windows on this guy's system?
I'm interested because I have a similar setup, a K7-650 on an Epox 7KXA (altho' I have a 300W ps)
I'm looking at this situation, and wondering how to react, I'm just so... non-conflicted about it.
Big deal!
Do online polls measure anything terribly accurately in the first place? Given the characterization of how the totals changed over time, no doubt there was tomfoolery. But it's overwhelmingly likely that some dork ran a script on it, and not that Bill and Steve looked at it, got worried, and just issued a few SQL statements to make everything come out all right.
gosh. I don't normally complain about the stories that get posted, but this one's a little much.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh, and Governor syllable never misspeaks? Second, if you read it in context, it is damn well clear what was meant. Like he really thinks anyone would be dumb enough to fall for such a trick. It's millions of times more probable that, to the extent that you can read it that way, he misspoke.
Lemme try this one more time. (Sorry, I no longer find the joke funny, b/c it means the claim's fallen into folklor)
When and where did Gore claim to have invented the 'net?
Don't get me started ... but, sigh, you're right. It shows that Gore is too afraid of alienating the middle to actually think about it either, which is as bad as the Shrub.
I'd like to see some sort of argument showing me that the state has a compelling interest in this issue (and, while we're at it, on preventing people from smoking pot, etc.). So many policies are based on religious and etihcal views that ought not to be enforced on the populace as a whole, it's sad..
The day may come. But I'm not so sure it will. Virtually nobody but a political junkie will do the research themselves, and this introduces intermediaries and, IMO, a vast potential for error.
Consider the Shrub's popularity; as far as I can see, it partially rests on the media's failure (in the general sense, obviously there are exceptions) to really look the guy over. Bush has declared certain subjects "out of bounds" (since when do the candidates write the rules?).
Al Gore is famous for "having claimed to invent the internet", and even a lot of the techno-savvy here seem to believe that (which is why it's no longer funny, not even as a joke). Yet the Shrub clearly claimed credit for laws he did not sign and even tried to veto (in the second debate), works off of anti-intellectualist sentiment (aw, Gore kept pushing Bush for answers, what a meanie), and so forth. Does the media bother to tear into Shrub for that?
(Note: I'm not saying anything about your preference here, I'm making a point about the dissection of candidates)
The problem is, no matter how savvy and info-hungry some of us are, the vast majority don't care that much. They won't do their research, they'll rely on the media (however little they say they trust them ... go on, how many out there know the details behind the things I've mentioned here?) There hasn't been *nearly* enough scrutiny of the right sort on the Shrub; whether that's due to media mendacity or just a sort of accident is in a way beside the point, because not everybody can keep up with all the info out there.
Yes. Awfully inclusive of him isn't it? And note atheists don't get a nod, either.
Of course, the guy's logic on this and related issues sucks (e.g. he apparently holds that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry; presumably this is based on his religious views, 'cos he sure as hell didn't give a secular justification for it; and when he did, it was the tired old "homosexuals shouldn't have special rights" line, to which the proper response is ... huh?)
I am pointing out that Bush has a double standard. Really, I don't think it's a big deal that he called somebody a name. But 'dubya' is the one who's insisted character is an issue, and when he's called on character issues (certainly, he's presented himself as a good Christian; but notice he didn't apologize for the comment, which is the least one should expect out of a Christian.) he stonewalls or claims it's an 'out of bounds' question. That's weasel behavior. That's what lack of integrity is.
Better we should trust the guy who claims credit for laws that were (a) passed before he got the governorship (patient's bill of rights) and/or (b) he tried to veto (hate crimes laws).
Or would that be Governor Integrity, whose response to questions about differences between his public face and private behavior (the cocaine use allegations, the "major league asshole" comment -- both valid challenges) is to refuse to talk and say the question is "out of bounds". Wow, there's a guy who applies principles fairly.
Check the high-silica composition of thine own dwelling.
Dang, missed that. But note that W. probably wouldn't answer every question anyway =)
use focus_groups;
use slashdot_questions;
# to hell with warnings and strict
# this script emulates W.
focus_groups(\@slashdot_question);
foreach (@slashdot_question) {
push @answers, $what_polled_well_in_the_focus_group{$_};
}
for ($i = 0; $i < $#answers; $i ++) {
print $slashdot_question[$i], "\n";
print $answers[$i], "\n";
}
It's a feature of the focus_groups pragma that most of your answers involve chiding someone for "following polls" or "using focus groups".
Uhh, what have Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken (just to pick two examples) been doing all these years then?
Nice thought n'all, but Nader wasn't able to get on the ballot in a lot of states. Moreover, in at least one of those states (North Carolina), he's not even a valid write-in. So a vote for Nader, in North Carolina, really *is* a wasted vote, modulo the protest factor.
Of course, this is just one of those laws the major parties have drafted to protect the citizenry from having choices ...
Well, of course ... I mean, the *title* is part of the post =)
McReynolds : I also want to make damn sure that poor writers are ripped off.
Damn! Sign me up!!!!
Lessee ...
- Why need the thing that created the pinhead be *intelligent*?
- What created that thing? If it doesn't itself need a creator, then why does the pinhead?
Even if you go for the 'intelligence' option, it['s not an intelligence we can understand very easily, so the hypothesis comes down to the same practical point either way.Hmm, I may have a misapprehension somewhere, but I thought the DoMA was basically an exercise of Congress' right to "prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved", i.e. the DoMA doesn't say "gay marriage is illegal", it says "a gay marriage valid in Hawaii need not be recognized by any other state."
A free society is *not* based on "majority rule," and I'd love it if people would see that democracy need not be based on this simplistic and utterly wrong idea. If elected representatives were more worried about doing the right thing than getting re-elected, the people might have more respect for them. At least Istook said the right thing here (I know nothing else about this person, so I don't want to pass judgment).
/me blinks ... Um, the original poster said no such thing. Read it again. The endorsement of the estate tax was justified, the poster felt, by the fact that some form of inheritance is justified.
How easy is it to amass wealth without a society (laws, infrastructure, etc.) ? The wealth wouldn't exist without the society, so it's a more difficult situation than your post suggests.
Hmmm ... one of the interesting things is that it's usually the case that *neither* side is "in power," when you take Congress into account.
Anyhow, the lack of difference in your life (going with the point, which I don't actually accept but since I don't have the energy to provide details, I won't challenge it) might stem from the fact that those at the top of the political heap are at at least one, usually more, removes from your daily life. The person running your local post office has to do with how efficiently your mail service is, same for your local zoning board, etc. These guys can start wars, etc., but they can't make the trains run on time ... at least not under the current system =
Guffaw Ever notice how much the anti-gun nuts love to compare firearms with male genitals? And in the same breath point out how BAD guns are? Gun == penis == bad. Gag. Which is worse, man-hating-women or men who wish they were dickless? Nice troll ... the logic's just bad enough and the language just inflammatory enough for me to give you THREE troll points.
So, Lenin and co. started the Bolshevik revolution ... but it had its roots much earlier.
ahh, just require every connection to be over SSL ... no problem, now that the RSA algorithm patent has expired ... =)
I think it might be related to the remark about benchmarks -- Linux advocates and corp.s (such as Redhat, who funded development the "Tux" webserver) wouldn't want to be shown up by IBM when the results IBM returned showed the original benchmarks to have been overblown.
At least that's how I read that part.
Perhaps I'm being obtuse here, but why would a weak power supply bork Windows and not Linux, unless it was bound to break something sooner or later and it was Windows on this guy's system?
I'm interested because I have a similar setup, a K7-650 on an Epox 7KXA (altho' I have a 300W ps)
Yes ... after all, it's not as if people are looking to run Quake on big iron.
/me pauses to look at the Alpha thread
Never mind ...
=) [on a serious note, I agree ... so *what* if development forks, would it really impact the average user all that much?
I'm looking at this situation, and wondering how to react, I'm just so ... non-conflicted about it.
Big deal!
Do online polls measure anything terribly accurately in the first place? Given the characterization of how the totals changed over time, no doubt there was tomfoolery. But it's overwhelmingly likely that some dork ran a script on it, and not that Bill and Steve looked at it, got worried, and just issued a few SQL statements to make everything come out all right.
gosh. I don't normally complain about the stories that get posted, but this one's a little much.