I'm on Boxer's mailing list. I often want to slap her.:( As you say, very seldom do they vote in line with MY beliefs, and I'm hardly unique.
Didn't know about Feinstein's CW permit, but that's exactly the sort of hypocrisy I've learned to expect from her.
As to how these people stay in office -- name recognition, and little else. Most people vote for the candidate whose name they recognise on the ballot, or from the news, or wherever.
True story from the 1972 Presidential election, from a fellow I knew who was doing door-to-door opinion polling. Over and over he encountered this scenario:
The folks being polled would espouse all sorts of classic conservative beliefs: low taxes, no gun control, small government, stay-the-hell-out-of-my-life.
The last question he asked 'em was, "So who do you think would make a good president??"
And what did these *conservative* voters answer??
"Teddy Kennedy".
SAY WHAT?!!!??!
I've long since stopped believing in democracy, considering where it's gotten us.:(
"Democracy: that ultimate triumph of quantity over quality." -- Peter H. Peel
I first suggested this when XP first came out.. being it started life as the perfectly good Win2K, with piles of 3rd-party crap shoveled in sideways, causing all sorts of bloat and conflicts (remember when you could not install 3rd party CD burning software on XP, because XP's own braindead burner util created a conflict?)
I just want the naked OS, drivers, maintenance utilities, and enough functionality to go fetch whatever else I might need; IOW, featurewise about on a par with Win9x or Win2K. I can install my own applications and miscellaneous utilities, I don't need OR WANT every app or util known to man included with the OS. If I want to buy my apps and utils from M$, great! if I don't, great! Either way, everybody happy, and I'd guess M$'s support headaches would be a lot smaller, too.
And yeah, over time this would probably become yet another "Razor free, blades $$" pricing scheme, but at least this way you get to buy blades from whoever best fills your need, rather than having a particular blade thrust upon you.
I agree McCain's economics are not really progress, but that's still better than the complete bankruptcy we can expect from Hillary and her... what was it at last report, $57B in unfunded mandates and entitlements? So... where does that money come from??
I'll tell you. OUR pockets.
As someone once put it, "He who robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul's vote."
Yikes. I would not have thought even such a small percentage of American Muslims would hold such hostile beliefs, if only because people are people everywhere, and most are at least tolerably "good" by reasonable standards of conduct.
One of the comments gets it right, tho: Muslims have to shoot their own mad dog. Until they're willing to do so, they will always be perceived as "the religion of hate", even tho a significant majority of Muslims are perfectly reasonable, peaceful people.
It took Christianity many centuries and a lot of bloodshed to figure this out. Islam is a younger, thus less-mature religion, and still in the throes of "US vs THEM", where keeping a mad dog to defend your camp still seems like a good idea.
Exactly so. Freedom of speech isn't constrained to just "speech that doesn't offend anyone" or only "morally upstanding speech". And if you don't like what someone is saying -- you're free not to listen. That's the real beauty of freedom of speech.
Conversely, societies that restrict speech often REQUIRE that citizens listen to propaganda, and/or REQUIRE some level of indoctrination in "correct thought". We've to some degree reached that point, what with "sensitivity training" often being used as punishment should someone utter a politically incorrect phrase.
The entire concept of "hate crimes" and "hate speech" only serves to point out and exacerbate our differences, and to criminalize those who honestly feel or believe a certain way. Whether their feelings or beliefs are justified, morally reprehensible, or completely full of shit is not the issue.
And the big problem with defining certain topics as prohibited speech is that what's acceptable or reprehensible changes as societies mature... and change again as they become senile.
(Personally, I think our nanny state, with its concepts of "protecting" certain classes from hate speech, is an example of a society becoming senile.)
Could be there's a direct relationship between how much the schooling makes you suffer, and how much benefit you'll get from it later on... methinks that applies to a lot of other fields as well!
The most frightening part is that given Hillary's success to this point, I think a Feinstein/Boxer ticket is all too realistic a possibility in the future.:(
I'm wondering about the area around Edwards AFB, which was located here in the Antelope Valley because uranium deposits make the ground too radioactive for human habitation (this hasn't prevented half a million people from living here) so what could it hurt?
"I think California is merely attempting to extort additional funding from the Feds before they jump naked into the Real ID pool."
That's an interesting perspective... I was suspicious of the sincerity of California's newfound "objections", and you just codified for me what didn't smell right. CA wants to be SEEN to object, especially if that generates some political leverage, but CA don't REALLY object. (I sure as hell can't envision any of CA's law enforcement agencies objecting.)
As to Feinstein and Boxer, you're absolutely correct. Want to have horrible nightmares? Imagine those two on a Pres/VP ticket. Or either of 'em as Hillary's running mate. [runs away screaming]
I laughed. It's how people have been everywhere since forever -- no matter what happens (including major disasters), someone can find an advantage in it, and if it does no harm, more power to ya.
However, in our 9/11 disaster, the advantage went to what is now DHS, which does indeed do harm... tho it fills the same marketing niche.
Until, of course, RealID is required to pass through the security checkpoints into Secure Areas (such as surrounding courthouses), or across state lines..... Papers, Komrade!!
I think what he's getting at is that a "driver's license" USED to be certification that you were a reasonably good driver, sufficiently safe to turn loose on the public byways. This has changed rather radically, coincidental with the introduction of photo IDs.
(Driver's licenses didn't used to have your picture, just your name and a certification of what class(es) of vehicle you were tested on.)
The use of a driver's license as a required form of ID, tho, probably IS unconstitutional, in the strictest sense. Likewise, confiscation of personal property because of failure to follow a possibly questionable law.
I agree the guy is a kook, but he does have a point.
Someone in the FA's comments had a good point -- restricting access to Federal buildings if you lack an RFID, er, RealID denies the Constitutional right to petition the courts. This is begging for a legal challenge to the RealID act.
And as I understand it, if a law is being challenged in court on Constitutional grounds, it cannot be enforced until the matter is settled. (If a constitutional lawyer is handy, they may want to comment on whether this is correct.)
As to the possibility of restricting access to medicines if you don't have a RealID -- this could be extended to just about anything. Want to buy a new car, or some real estate? Not without a RealID you don't!
Actually, that's a good example: What if a certain type of DRM'd disks would only play on a certain very expensive brand of player, even all other players are cheap commodity items??
Yes, we've sortof had this situation (tape type X only plays on player brand Y) but you may notice such pairings typically do NOT dominate the consumer market, so long as any more-generic alternative still exists.
I *don't* like McCain, but of the 3 choices we're being handed, he's the least likely to utterly bankrupt the country. Which is why he'll probably get my vote, come November. (I'd rather have Ron Paul, if only to put the brakes on Congress, but that doesn't look particularly realistic.)
How's 8.x for performance? I just tried 7.last, and lordy, was it slow. Everything seems to work (which is an improvement over 5.x and 6.x) but even on a 2GHz machine with 1GB of RAM, every new operation involved noticeable wait-time.
Previously I'd had 6.something on an 800MHz box, and while not precisely slick (tho much faster than 5.x on the same box), it still ran rings around the 7.x install on the 2GHz box.
Whilst reading your explanations, I had the thought that this patent isn't at all about IDing the user type. It's about convincing advertisers (Googles REAL customers) to pay differential ad rates, ie. higher rates for presumed-better-targeted audiences -- whether it actually works in Real Life or not.
(As I note up above, if they think lack of online sophistication is indicative of a juvenile user, they're going to find themselves marketing toys to a lot of grannies.)
My first thought was that if they think lack of online sophistication means the user is a kid, they're going to be marketing toys to a lot of grannies.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm on Boxer's mailing list. I often want to slap her. :( As you say, very seldom do they vote in line with MY beliefs, and I'm hardly unique.
:(
Didn't know about Feinstein's CW permit, but that's exactly the sort of hypocrisy I've learned to expect from her.
As to how these people stay in office -- name recognition, and little else. Most people vote for the candidate whose name they recognise on the ballot, or from the news, or wherever.
True story from the 1972 Presidential election, from a fellow I knew who was doing door-to-door opinion polling. Over and over he encountered this scenario:
The folks being polled would espouse all sorts of classic conservative beliefs: low taxes, no gun control, small government, stay-the-hell-out-of-my-life.
The last question he asked 'em was, "So who do you think would make a good president??"
And what did these *conservative* voters answer??
"Teddy Kennedy".
SAY WHAT?!!!??!
I've long since stopped believing in democracy, considering where it's gotten us.
"Democracy: that ultimate triumph of quantity over quality." -- Peter H. Peel
I first suggested this when XP first came out.. being it started life as the perfectly good Win2K, with piles of 3rd-party crap shoveled in sideways, causing all sorts of bloat and conflicts (remember when you could not install 3rd party CD burning software on XP, because XP's own braindead burner util created a conflict?)
I just want the naked OS, drivers, maintenance utilities, and enough functionality to go fetch whatever else I might need; IOW, featurewise about on a par with Win9x or Win2K. I can install my own applications and miscellaneous utilities, I don't need OR WANT every app or util known to man included with the OS. If I want to buy my apps and utils from M$, great! if I don't, great! Either way, everybody happy, and I'd guess M$'s support headaches would be a lot smaller, too.
And yeah, over time this would probably become yet another "Razor free, blades $$" pricing scheme, but at least this way you get to buy blades from whoever best fills your need, rather than having a particular blade thrust upon you.
I agree McCain's economics are not really progress, but that's still better than the complete bankruptcy we can expect from Hillary and her ... what was it at last report, $57B in unfunded mandates and entitlements? So... where does that money come from??
I'll tell you. OUR pockets.
As someone once put it, "He who robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul's vote."
Yikes. I would not have thought even such a small percentage of American Muslims would hold such hostile beliefs, if only because people are people everywhere, and most are at least tolerably "good" by reasonable standards of conduct.
One of the comments gets it right, tho: Muslims have to shoot their own mad dog. Until they're willing to do so, they will always be perceived as "the religion of hate", even tho a significant majority of Muslims are perfectly reasonable, peaceful people.
It took Christianity many centuries and a lot of bloodshed to figure this out. Islam is a younger, thus less-mature religion, and still in the throes of "US vs THEM", where keeping a mad dog to defend your camp still seems like a good idea.
Exactly so. Freedom of speech isn't constrained to just "speech that doesn't offend anyone" or only "morally upstanding speech". And if you don't like what someone is saying -- you're free not to listen. That's the real beauty of freedom of speech.
Conversely, societies that restrict speech often REQUIRE that citizens listen to propaganda, and/or REQUIRE some level of indoctrination in "correct thought". We've to some degree reached that point, what with "sensitivity training" often being used as punishment should someone utter a politically incorrect phrase.
The entire concept of "hate crimes" and "hate speech" only serves to point out and exacerbate our differences, and to criminalize those who honestly feel or believe a certain way. Whether their feelings or beliefs are justified, morally reprehensible, or completely full of shit is not the issue.
And the big problem with defining certain topics as prohibited speech is that what's acceptable or reprehensible changes as societies mature... and change again as they become senile.
(Personally, I think our nanny state, with its concepts of "protecting" certain classes from hate speech, is an example of a society becoming senile.)
Could be there's a direct relationship between how much the schooling makes you suffer, and how much benefit you'll get from it later on ... methinks that applies to a lot of other fields as well!
Hey, you can't say I didn't warn you :)
:(
The most frightening part is that given Hillary's success to this point, I think a Feinstein/Boxer ticket is all too realistic a possibility in the future.
I'm wondering about the area around Edwards AFB, which was located here in the Antelope Valley because uranium deposits make the ground too radioactive for human habitation (this hasn't prevented half a million people from living here) so what could it hurt?
Shred your personal stuff.
:)
Then wrap the remains in the dirty diapers.
Serves the snoops right.
Nah, put the cat box last, so you can use it for target practice.
"I think California is merely attempting to extort additional funding from the Feds before they jump naked into the Real ID pool."
That's an interesting perspective... I was suspicious of the sincerity of California's newfound "objections", and you just codified for me what didn't smell right. CA wants to be SEEN to object, especially if that generates some political leverage, but CA don't REALLY object. (I sure as hell can't envision any of CA's law enforcement agencies objecting.)
As to Feinstein and Boxer, you're absolutely correct. Want to have horrible nightmares? Imagine those two on a Pres/VP ticket. Or either of 'em as Hillary's running mate. [runs away screaming]
I laughed. It's how people have been everywhere since forever -- no matter what happens (including major disasters), someone can find an advantage in it, and if it does no harm, more power to ya.
However, in our 9/11 disaster, the advantage went to what is now DHS, which does indeed do harm... tho it fills the same marketing niche.
He's a farmer by profession. What's he *supposed* to sound like??
Until, of course, RealID is required to pass through the security checkpoints into Secure Areas (such as surrounding courthouses), or across state lines..... Papers, Komrade!!
I think what he's getting at is that a "driver's license" USED to be certification that you were a reasonably good driver, sufficiently safe to turn loose on the public byways. This has changed rather radically, coincidental with the introduction of photo IDs.
(Driver's licenses didn't used to have your picture, just your name and a certification of what class(es) of vehicle you were tested on.)
The use of a driver's license as a required form of ID, tho, probably IS unconstitutional, in the strictest sense. Likewise, confiscation of personal property because of failure to follow a possibly questionable law.
I agree the guy is a kook, but he does have a point.
Someone in the FA's comments had a good point -- restricting access to Federal buildings if you lack an RFID, er, RealID denies the Constitutional right to petition the courts. This is begging for a legal challenge to the RealID act.
And as I understand it, if a law is being challenged in court on Constitutional grounds, it cannot be enforced until the matter is settled. (If a constitutional lawyer is handy, they may want to comment on whether this is correct.)
As to the possibility of restricting access to medicines if you don't have a RealID -- this could be extended to just about anything. Want to buy a new car, or some real estate? Not without a RealID you don't!
Actually, that's a good example: What if a certain type of DRM'd disks would only play on a certain very expensive brand of player, even all other players are cheap commodity items??
Yes, we've sortof had this situation (tape type X only plays on player brand Y) but you may notice such pairings typically do NOT dominate the consumer market, so long as any more-generic alternative still exists.
I *don't* like McCain, but of the 3 choices we're being handed, he's the least likely to utterly bankrupt the country. Which is why he'll probably get my vote, come November. (I'd rather have Ron Paul, if only to put the brakes on Congress, but that doesn't look particularly realistic.)
How's 8.x for performance? I just tried 7.last, and lordy, was it slow. Everything seems to work (which is an improvement over 5.x and 6.x) but even on a 2GHz machine with 1GB of RAM, every new operation involved noticeable wait-time.
Previously I'd had 6.something on an 800MHz box, and while not precisely slick (tho much faster than 5.x on the same box), it still ran rings around the 7.x install on the 2GHz box.
Damn, our secret is out :)
Whilst reading your explanations, I had the thought that this patent isn't at all about IDing the user type. It's about convincing advertisers (Googles REAL customers) to pay differential ad rates, ie. higher rates for presumed-better-targeted audiences -- whether it actually works in Real Life or not.
(As I note up above, if they think lack of online sophistication is indicative of a juvenile user, they're going to find themselves marketing toys to a lot of grannies.)
My first thought was that if they think lack of online sophistication means the user is a kid, they're going to be marketing toys to a lot of grannies.
I only speak Martian, you insensitive clod!! ;)
Well, okay... meanwhile, what am I supposed to do about the water all over my floor? ;0
Ah, so you haven't accounted for the leaks ;)