Riiiight, and KaZaa can be used for things other than piracy, and handguns can be used for things other than shooting people . . .
Well, yes handguns can be used for other things besides killing people, as has been demonstrated by the other people responding to you.
When I get my next one though, it's main purpose will be for killing people (not just shooting them and hurting them a little). Be it people who enter my home uninvited or be it people that assault others in my presance. Many others inbetween.
Granted, it will be used for target shooting a lot more than people/varmint shooting as hitting your intended target is proper gun control.
If you have a probvlem with that just don't fall into the above groups (or similar) and you will never know if I am armed or not.
Actually, I was a year off on the recession JE but kept the journal entry anyway as an example of how Dems. would re-write history if they were Republicans.
Also, something to remember, the economy under GHW Bush was beginning an upswing that was yet to be reported in time for him to take advantage of it for his election.
Just wondering why when they are both Democrats, as in this case, the/. story does not mention their party. When they are Republicans the party is made very clear, like with Sen. Hatch.
If 'they' were really interested in tracking the "suspicious people" 'they' just have to hang out in front of "The Village Voice" and WBAI offices in NYC:-)
Since Bush and his crew both advocated AND stand behind their decisions to do the perfectly legal things they do I see no comparison to what we were talking about.
Again, good luck with your research. I have no desire to join your childish arguement.
Dean does not support "gay marriage", he signed the VT bill (proposed by the legislature, after being ordered by the VT courts) allowing "civil unions", although a politically unpopular move at the time, he won relection six months later. When asked about this, Dean says he saw it merely as an issue of "equal rights", that homosexual couples should have the same rights that I do (heterosexual) on issues like hospital visitation and healthcare decision authority for my significant other (my soon-to-be wife). Dean's signature as Governor of Vermont had nothing to do with an endorsement or disparagement of any form of sexuality. Hence the phrase coined by the VT legislature "civil unions", because it leaves "marriage" a religious institution, as it should be, while still standing up for equal rights. He also proposes that each state make it's own decision on "civil unions", it is not for the federal government to decide.
Where is the BS in that?
Right here.
Well, at least he's up-front about things -- or is he? Having supported Vermont's divisive civil union law, which confers the legal rights of husbands and wives onto homosexual couples -- "in many ways," he said, "the most important event in my political life" -- he signed the controversial legislation behind closed doors. Why?
The BS was not in his signing it, the BS is in his hiding to sign it then touting it later. I fully support ANYBODY being able to slog through the BS of this spousal big-brotherhood if they choose to participate. I have no idea if VT has "common law marriage", but if he got rid of that nonsense I would be double-plus impressed. In this case, he extended the governmental tab-keeping of people.
Only all that I have read. I am sure something he has stated might be true and/or consistant:
http://slashdot.org/~eglamkowski/journal/38218 Plus his "support" of gay marriage, although he signed the bill behind closed doors and kept his profile as low as possible until it was convenient.*
http://slashdot.org/~GMontag/journal/37978
Plenty more out there, hope the above helps. I just don't toss a link into my journal every time I hear him called on another set of tall tales.
*Anybody that reads my journal knows my position on this matches no known politician in the US or perhaps in the Western Hemesphere.
BTW, if you are under the impression that the breakup of Getty's corporation increased competition in any way then you are not too familiar with the situation.
One massive corporation was divided into 36 (or so) and having all of the original owners owning the same percentages of the smaller firms, i.e., Getty still owned the same percentage of Esso and all the others after they were created.
Quite the opposite of what happened with the Bell system where shareholders were forced to choose one company or another for their stock transfer.
As stated above, the AT&T example is bad for a different reason.
There is no good example of "Anti-Trust" doing anything beneficial at all.
"Ma Bell" was a publically regulated monopoly who REQUESTED, on it's own accord, to no longer be so. It is not an example of a firm that got giant all o it's own then "needed" to be chopped up.
If it were not for all of these stupid (yes STUPID) Sherman Anti-Trust laws this would not be an issue to begin with. Anti-Trust created the conglomerate ad Oracle is just a conglomerate emulation.
The "Ponzi Scheme" comparison is much older than that, although 1999 might be the oldest refrence on the web. I know I have heard that fraiming of SS sice at least the early 80's.
If anybody is interested, try looking at William F. Buckley articles from the 1960's, 70's and 80's for more history.
BTW, the only thing I like about Howard Dean is that handgun concealed carry permits were never imposed in VT while he was Governor, but I have no idea if he had anything to do with that. I have already learned that his statements about his positions from the past are all BS, so no telling what he really did or tried to do with that.
All true, but I believe the point of the parent poster is: the 'evil corporations' are too cheap to replace every transponder on every satellite whenever a vulnerability is exploited.
Sorry, I just can't agree with his 'too cheap' accusation. I go with the 'it is much to impractical to do all at once and will have to be upgraded over time' theory.
Slashdot Mirror
I was about to say the same thing as the parent. Glad you got on and brought more light to the situation too.
Definately not a Dean supporter here, but things like this can happen to any organization.
Sometimes overzealous supporters can be your greatest enemies.
Riiiight, and KaZaa can be used for things other than piracy, and handguns can be used for things other than shooting people . . .
Well, yes handguns can be used for other things besides killing people, as has been demonstrated by the other people responding to you.
When I get my next one though, it's main purpose will be for killing people (not just shooting them and hurting them a little). Be it people who enter my home uninvited or be it people that assault others in my presance. Many others inbetween.
Granted, it will be used for target shooting a lot more than people/varmint shooting as hitting your intended target is proper gun control.
If you have a probvlem with that just don't fall into the above groups (or similar) and you will never know if I am armed or not.
Have a nice day.
Er... how much for +1 Karma?
Priceless.
Whatever Happened to Micropayments?
I believe they fell through the cracks.
Not to mention that revenues did not decline, IIRC, during the entire period everybody in this thread is discussing.
Federal revenues increased and so did State revenues, including California, so they both ran out and increased spending even faster than revenues.
I thought Thomas Jefferson took care of this problem around 1791?
These DTV guys need to watch the History Channel more often.
Actually, I was a year off on the recession JE but kept the journal entry anyway as an example of how Dems. would re-write history if they were Republicans.
Also, something to remember, the economy under GHW Bush was beginning an upswing that was yet to be reported in time for him to take advantage of it for his election.
And that still does not drop the entertainment industry into small business status, it is still Big Business.
Hate to break this to you, but "Hollywood" is one of the biggest businesses in the world.
Just wondering why when they are both Democrats, as in this case, the /. story does not mention their party. When they are Republicans the party is made very clear, like with Sen. Hatch.
If 'they' were really interested in tracking the "suspicious people" 'they' just have to hang out in front of "The Village Voice" and WBAI offices in NYC :-)
Since Bush and his crew both advocated AND stand behind their decisions to do the perfectly legal things they do I see no comparison to what we were talking about.
Again, good luck with your research. I have no desire to join your childish arguement.
Where is the BS in that?
Right here.
The BS was not in his signing it, the BS is in his hiding to sign it then touting it later. I fully support ANYBODY being able to slog through the BS of this spousal big-brotherhood if they choose to participate. I have no idea if VT has "common law marriage", but if he got rid of that nonsense I would be double-plus impressed. In this case, he extended the governmental tab-keeping of people.
Good luck on the rest of your research.
Only all that I have read. I am sure something he has stated might be true and/or consistant:
http://slashdot.org/~eglamkowski/journal/38218
Plus his "support" of gay marriage, although he signed the bill behind closed doors and kept his profile as low as possible until it was convenient.*
http://slashdot.org/~GMontag/journal/37978
Plenty more out there, hope the above helps. I just don't toss a link into my journal every time I hear him called on another set of tall tales.
*Anybody that reads my journal knows my position on this matches no known politician in the US or perhaps in the Western Hemesphere.
BTW, if you are under the impression that the breakup of Getty's corporation increased competition in any way then you are not too familiar with the situation.
One massive corporation was divided into 36 (or so) and having all of the original owners owning the same percentages of the smaller firms, i.e., Getty still owned the same percentage of Esso and all the others after they were created.
Quite the opposite of what happened with the Bell system where shareholders were forced to choose one company or another for their stock transfer.
As stated above, the AT&T example is bad for a different reason.
There is no good example of "Anti-Trust" doing anything beneficial at all.
You might love to and you might think that's how it works, but it doesnt.
Online voting is being incouraged
Maybe so, but it is being encouraged because of cost, as aut0pron states above.
Try a another example. Yours fits not.
"Ma Bell" was a publically regulated monopoly who REQUESTED, on it's own accord, to no longer be so. It is not an example of a firm that got giant all o it's own then "needed" to be chopped up.
A perfect example was oil.
All of the Texas/Oklahoma firms sprang up without a peep from Getty and nobody in the government was making Getty leave them alone at that point.
I prefer no-anti-trust thank you.
If it were not for all of these stupid (yes STUPID) Sherman Anti-Trust laws this would not be an issue to begin with. Anti-Trust created the conglomerate ad Oracle is just a conglomerate emulation.
The "Ponzi Scheme" comparison is much older than that, although 1999 might be the oldest refrence on the web. I know I have heard that fraiming of SS sice at least the early 80's.
If anybody is interested, try looking at William F. Buckley articles from the 1960's, 70's and 80's for more history.
BTW, the only thing I like about Howard Dean is that handgun concealed carry permits were never imposed in VT while he was Governor, but I have no idea if he had anything to do with that. I have already learned that his statements about his positions from the past are all BS, so no telling what he really did or tried to do with that.
All true, but I believe the point of the parent poster is: the 'evil corporations' are too cheap to replace every transponder on every satellite whenever a vulnerability is exploited.
Sorry, I just can't agree with his 'too cheap' accusation. I go with the 'it is much to impractical to do all at once and will have to be upgraded over time' theory.
Why would a pro-democracy channel be blocked by US forces in Gitmo?
Pretty old news that the Iranian satellite channel originating in California is an anti-Mullah/new-Revolutionary channel.
Unfortunatly, none of the lead parties involved agrees with you.
I am sure it is a nice fantasy, not that there is anything wrong with that.
Still upset about that defeat of Communism? Time to move on.