I heard his comments refrenced on one of the political shows this weekend. He is right on the money in his general criticism of what is going on in the US right now with overbearing courts and bad school systems ruining several generations at one swipe.
As for a different poster's comment that it is just Right Wing propoganda, or some such, and it is just missing "Christianity in schools" invective that people cluless of Right Wing ideology seem to shoot: 1)the "Right Wing", as in true Conservatives, embraces freedom of choice, especially in religon 2)Ben Stein is not Christian
So virtual snooping isn't the same as, say, physically lurking in the shadows and following them around.
Yes, it quite obviously is not the same.
None the less, I feel the elements of stalking where there.
Well, you could 'feel' that the elements of international terrorism, carjacking, jaywalking and international drug smuggling were there too, but from what you have written nothing of the sort is indicated.
Re:Yeah, well, hot chicks dig guys who don't . . .
on
Googling For Dates?
·
· Score: 3, Funny
So if you're really desperately hot for a particular chick and can fake casual sincerity you've got it made.
Oh, you misunderstood, I meant any exceptionally hot chicks, not one i specific. And I am always sincere, whether I mean it or not.
Re:Does this seem bass-ackward to anyone else?
on
Googling For Dates?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Seriously, is it going to become necessary for women to get preemptive restraining orders against guys they haven't dated yet, to keep from being stalked on line "as a precautionary measure?"
Wow, this "stalking" word/concept has taken on a wild life of it's own. Back in my day, "to stalk" actually required followning the prey in person!
Do people, now, seriously use this term to mean a thought crime of some sort? Does going to the library to lookup someone's past print work count in this new thought crime of "stalking"? "Your Honor, we have his library records, he was looking up English papers at my old college..."
Do the people that keep expanding this term, both in common language as well as in the law, think Orwell's fiction is some sort blueprint of a perfect society?
At what point does snooping around for information on others cross the line into stalking?
In a word, never.
Even though the term "stalking" has been over used into near meaninglessness, using research tools *never* becomes "stalking" as in physically following someone around.
Re:I've said so much stuff I regret. . .
on
Googling For Dates?
·
· Score: 2
Well *I* care if people are offended by what I say, but only if it is an exceptionally hot chick.
It was interesting because the utility was not mentioned in the immediate article does not mean it was not used. Commentors, try looking it (openDK story) up then get a clue!
Taliban, militant anti-abortionists, SDS, and the anti-gun movement have little if anything in common; attempts to lump them together for the purposes of argument only serve to obfuscate the issues.
To the astute observer they have very obvious shared behaviours. The are all close minded, power grabing, incencere, totalitarian groups. The purpose for their selection in one sentence was the just mentioned traits being in common even though the political objectives are vastly different.
Perhaps you should ask more questions when you do not understand the comment.
Ahem, that group seems to be one that has drawn a conclusion and will slander anybody that does not agree with it. Essentually, they are the Talinban/militant anti-abortion/Students for Democratic Society sect of the anti-gun movement.
I am not taking the time at this late hour to lookup a book they support, but IIRC it is a book statig that hardly anybody in Colonial times owned a gun and the Founding Fathers never itended to allow general firearm ownership. The author has siince been thouroughly discredited since few of his sources have turned out to support his view, i.e., he made things up to support his and the MMM position.
If I have time in the next few daysI will post proof of this, others feel free to look it up on your own.
BTW, during the "million mom march" the Second Amendment Sisters marched too ad were spat upon, thrown at and cursed by the "million mom" bunch. So much for the "peaceful" gun-free sect.
As others in this thread have mentoned (but are only scored at 1 as I write this), John Lott was trying to prove the opposite of his book title. Turns out the evidence proved to him that a "more armed" community will have less gun violence (and other violent crimes) than "less armed" communities. He published his findings honestly.
Please, mod these other folks up in this thread, they were here first but somehow were not posted with a +2 like this post.
I said that they are shut out...I did not say becasue of lack of funding...I was pointing to that fact as a reason they are not getting funding. they have no forum.
They have plenty of forums! Everybody in this country that was interested in hearing Ralph Nader's message, or Harry Browne's message, or Pat Buchanan's message had every opportunity to hear it and REJECTED IT!
Now, please quit blaming the dismal performance of your pet parties on a lack of funding, that is obviously not the problem on "message distribution".
My vehicle was "fliered" by all of these guys in Reston, VA. I saw them all on C-SPAN, I read about them all in the papers, I saw Nader on every stripe of news show and on and on. I even supported Browne until the last moment when I voted differently, to prevent Gore from winning MY home State of Tennessee (not his home territory, he won DC). Guess what? That was MY choice, the same CHOICE millions of others made! I was not forced, kept in the dark, bought, rented or any other sore-looser arguement the minor parties have for why this happens, it was MY CHOICE.
I certainly DO support making it easier to get on the ballot, I love voting in Tennessee where we get ballots like this (note 15 candidates for Governor alone). Where I vote we have a real choice and have every opportunity to learn about all of the candidates.
Have fun with your pitty party, your arguement has no solid basis.
those groups are shut out of every presidential debate, they can not put ads on TV becasue they lack the funding. there are 2 solutions, let them in on presidential debates and give them cash for ad space. I supported welstone's ideas about publicly funded candidacy. that is the most fair way to run a system that everyone can have a chance to lead.
Oh please! They are not "shut out" due to a lack of funding, they are "shut out" by the rules that The League of Women Voters and the other sponsoring organizations impose on debates. Having money is not one of those rules, at least for the LWV.
They do not have cash for ad space because they have very little support for their ideas, neither financial nor from the voters. They get on the ballot in spades and garner no popular following. If you are looking for a "problem" look at their out-of-touch message rather than their checkbooks.
I am not sure who your sources are, but I suggest you find some that include some facts as a basis for their rhetoric.
I was premature in my statement for dropping this discussion.
Why assume there are more poor people voting? You attempt to add an irrelevant factor and claim this somehow justifies you.
No, I am not assuming that there are mor poor people voting and you are the only one introducing irrelevancy here. You brought up a hypothetical candidate's popularity amoung the hypothetical poor. I mentioned that if they vote he will win. If this is too complicated for you (I to not think it is) then we need not bother with this hypothetical.
The facts are that in the US there is no means testing for voting. If the poor wish to vote they will, if they wish not to vote they will do that instead. I have no idea why this simple fact (not a hypothetical) is ignored by ONE side of this debate.
As for 'forced registration'... I registered to get my drivers liscense and was NOT required to register to vote. Placing the forms together is a convenience. Not a mandate.
Bravo for you, you live in a State that does not automatically register you to vote if you get your "freedom to travel" license. It happens to be a mandate in the States that automatically register drivers to vote.
Just because YOU have not experienced this does not mean it is a mirage. Also, just because YOU have certain voting habits and choices does not mean that EVERYBODY must agree with your choices. It does not mean that they are insane, ill-informed, unenlightned nor anything of the sort, it means that they do not behave the same way you do. Don't take it personally.
If you do not call automatic registration when getting a completely un-related license, a mandate then I just can not discuss anything with you. Not because I have a lack of understanding of your position, but because you make up definitions to suit your weak position.
I invite you to move to Iraq, North Korea or Cuba where all candidates have the same funding and nearly everybody chooses the same candidate. Plenty of finance reform there, have at it.
The problem with a statement like this is that we all don't have X amount of money to give to candidates. If a candidates popularity is among the wealthy, he will recieve far more financial support than if his support is from among the poor.
sigh, my response to that is "so what".
If his support os from the poor and there are more poor voters, the candidate will win no matter how much money he raised.
and, YES I have noticed the lower voter turnouts, even when adjusted for "forced registration" through motor-votor efforts (forces people that do not even want to register, much less vote to be added to the statistics). My response to this also is "so what".
Have you noticed that the more we "reform" campaign financing the lower the turnout and the more difficult it is for a candidate to challenge an incumbant successfully? That was rhetorical, I am done with this nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
if the conference becomes a regular thing, it means that spam is still a big problem.
You sort of lost me there. Sounds like you are implying that spam will cease being a problem if we just stop the confrences.
No offence to you Pacifists out there, but the problem does not go away by ignoring it.
No doooode! She's into you! Score doode score!
If it's cable, they're WAY different
I missed where they mention cable in the story. I was concentrating on the smart card and wireless transmission (TV, satellite).
Finally, a clueful post that I can agree with.
I heard his comments refrenced on one of the political shows this weekend. He is right on the money in his general criticism of what is going on in the US right now with overbearing courts and bad school systems ruining several generations at one swipe.
As for a different poster's comment that it is just Right Wing propoganda, or some such, and it is just missing "Christianity in schools" invective that people cluless of Right Wing ideology seem to shoot:
1)the "Right Wing", as in true Conservatives, embraces freedom of choice, especially in religon
2)Ben Stein is not Christian
If the cards are the equivalent of the new DirecTV P4 cards, then yes we will.
I misspoke, meant more like "will the satellite crackers lend a hand and crack it in about 45 seconds". But you get the idea.
I wonder if the satellite cracking guys might have a solution to this "speed bump" in, oh, about 45 seconds after release?
Sounds like these folks need to read Cringley's "Curtain Call" article and stop wasting so much effort on things that are doomed to fail.
You idiot, that guy has been around for ages. I bust a gut every time I accidentally click the link.
I made my response, if you can not read the words plain as day in front of your face then just ignore it.
So virtual snooping isn't the same as, say, physically lurking in the shadows and following them around.
Yes, it quite obviously is not the same.
None the less, I feel the elements of stalking where there.
Well, you could 'feel' that the elements of international terrorism, carjacking, jaywalking and international drug smuggling were there too, but from what you have written nothing of the sort is indicated.
So if you're really desperately hot for a particular chick and can fake casual sincerity you've got it made.
Oh, you misunderstood, I meant any exceptionally hot chicks, not one i specific. And I am always sincere, whether I mean it or not.
Seriously, is it going to become necessary for women to get preemptive restraining orders against guys they haven't dated yet, to keep from being stalked on line "as a precautionary measure?"
Wow, this "stalking" word/concept has taken on a wild life of it's own. Back in my day, "to stalk" actually required followning the prey in person!
Do people, now, seriously use this term to mean a thought crime of some sort? Does going to the library to lookup someone's past print work count in this new thought crime of "stalking"? "Your Honor, we have his library records, he was looking up English papers at my old college..."
Do the people that keep expanding this term, both in common language as well as in the law, think Orwell's fiction is some sort blueprint of a perfect society?
At what point does snooping around for information on others cross the line into stalking?
In a word, never.
Even though the term "stalking" has been over used into near meaninglessness, using research tools *never* becomes "stalking" as in physically following someone around.
Well *I* care if people are offended by what I say, but only if it is an exceptionally hot chick.
Otherwise, like you, I don't care either.
In a Capitolist society, the bosses give gifts to the workers. In the US Federal (socialistic) society, the workers give gifts to their "overseers".
I am a little puzzled as to what enviroment the author is *really* in...
You retard, I just thought it was funny and responded to it.
When I post AC I tag it with my nic anyway.
It was interesting because the utility was not mentioned in the immediate article does not mean it was not used. Commentors, try looking it (openDK story) up then get a clue!
with locations in either airports, railway stations or bus terminals in Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Kingston
Well, you would think that they could narrow down the locations better than that.
Toronto? Okay, let's spread out and find where the APs are located here...
Welcome to SnowCrash...
That is the first thing I thought, YT's automatic inflatable collar for extreme skateboarding and fighting nuclear terrorists.
Taliban, militant anti-abortionists, SDS, and the anti-gun movement have little if anything in common; attempts to lump them together for the purposes of argument only serve to obfuscate the issues.
To the astute observer they have very obvious shared behaviours. The are all close minded, power grabing, incencere, totalitarian groups. The purpose for their selection in one sentence was the just mentioned traits being in common even though the political objectives are vastly different.
Perhaps you should ask more questions when you do not understand the comment.
Ahem, that group seems to be one that has drawn a conclusion and will slander anybody that does not agree with it. Essentually, they are the Talinban/militant anti-abortion/Students for Democratic Society sect of the anti-gun movement.
I am not taking the time at this late hour to lookup a book they support, but IIRC it is a book statig that hardly anybody in Colonial times owned a gun and the Founding Fathers never itended to allow general firearm ownership. The author has siince been thouroughly discredited since few of his sources have turned out to support his view, i.e., he made things up to support his and the MMM position.
If I have time in the next few daysI will post proof of this, others feel free to look it up on your own.
BTW, during the "million mom march" the Second Amendment Sisters marched too ad were spat upon, thrown at and cursed by the "million mom" bunch. So much for the "peaceful" gun-free sect.
As others in this thread have mentoned (but are only scored at 1 as I write this), John Lott was trying to prove the opposite of his book title. Turns out the evidence proved to him that a "more armed" community will have less gun violence (and other violent crimes) than "less armed" communities. He published his findings honestly.
Please, mod these other folks up in this thread, they were here first but somehow were not posted with a +2 like this post.
I said that they are shut out...I did not say becasue of lack of funding...I was pointing to that fact as a reason they are not getting funding. they have no forum.
They have plenty of forums! Everybody in this country that was interested in hearing Ralph Nader's message, or Harry Browne's message, or Pat Buchanan's message had every opportunity to hear it and REJECTED IT!
Now, please quit blaming the dismal performance of your pet parties on a lack of funding, that is obviously not the problem on "message distribution".
My vehicle was "fliered" by all of these guys in Reston, VA. I saw them all on C-SPAN, I read about them all in the papers, I saw Nader on every stripe of news show and on and on. I even supported Browne until the last moment when I voted differently, to prevent Gore from winning MY home State of Tennessee (not his home territory, he won DC). Guess what? That was MY choice, the same CHOICE millions of others made! I was not forced, kept in the dark, bought, rented or any other sore-looser arguement the minor parties have for why this happens, it was MY CHOICE.
I certainly DO support making it easier to get on the ballot, I love voting in Tennessee where we get ballots like this (note 15 candidates for Governor alone). Where I vote we have a real choice and have every opportunity to learn about all of the candidates.
Have fun with your pitty party, your arguement has no solid basis.
those groups are shut out of every presidential debate, they can not put ads on TV becasue they lack the funding. there are 2 solutions, let them in on presidential debates and give them cash for ad space. I supported welstone's ideas about publicly funded candidacy. that is the most fair way to run a system that everyone can have a chance to lead.
Oh please! They are not "shut out" due to a lack of funding, they are "shut out" by the rules that The League of Women Voters and the other sponsoring organizations impose on debates. Having money is not one of those rules, at least for the LWV.
They do not have cash for ad space because they have very little support for their ideas, neither financial nor from the voters. They get on the ballot in spades and garner no popular following. If you are looking for a "problem" look at their out-of-touch message rather than their checkbooks.
I am not sure who your sources are, but I suggest you find some that include some facts as a basis for their rhetoric.
Sounds like I need to build my own and hook it up to my cable connection QUICK!
I was premature in my statement for dropping this discussion.
Why assume there are more poor people voting? You attempt to add an irrelevant factor and claim this somehow justifies you.
No, I am not assuming that there are mor poor people voting and you are the only one introducing irrelevancy here. You brought up a hypothetical candidate's popularity amoung the hypothetical poor. I mentioned that if they vote he will win. If this is too complicated for you (I to not think it is) then we need not bother with this hypothetical.
The facts are that in the US there is no means testing for voting. If the poor wish to vote they will, if they wish not to vote they will do that instead. I have no idea why this simple fact (not a hypothetical) is ignored by ONE side of this debate.
As for 'forced registration'... I registered to get my drivers liscense and was NOT required to register to vote. Placing the forms together is a convenience. Not a mandate.
Bravo for you, you live in a State that does not automatically register you to vote if you get your "freedom to travel" license. It happens to be a mandate in the States that automatically register drivers to vote.
Just because YOU have not experienced this does not mean it is a mirage. Also, just because YOU have certain voting habits and choices does not mean that EVERYBODY must agree with your choices. It does not mean that they are insane, ill-informed, unenlightned nor anything of the sort, it means that they do not behave the same way you do. Don't take it personally.
If you do not call automatic registration when getting a completely un-related license, a mandate then I just can not discuss anything with you. Not because I have a lack of understanding of your position, but because you make up definitions to suit your weak position.
I invite you to move to Iraq, North Korea or Cuba where all candidates have the same funding and nearly everybody chooses the same candidate. Plenty of finance reform there, have at it.
The problem with a statement like this is that we all don't have X amount of money to give to candidates. If a candidates popularity is among the wealthy, he will recieve far more financial support than if his support is from among the poor.
sigh, my response to that is "so what".
If his support os from the poor and there are more poor voters, the candidate will win no matter how much money he raised.
and, YES I have noticed the lower voter turnouts, even when adjusted for "forced registration" through motor-votor efforts (forces people that do not even want to register, much less vote to be added to the statistics). My response to this also is "so what".
Have you noticed that the more we "reform" campaign financing the lower the turnout and the more difficult it is for a candidate to challenge an incumbant successfully? That was rhetorical, I am done with this nonsense.