I find it amusing how Slashbots consider restrictions on their ability to share media (which they disparage in the next breath as garbage) such an egregious invasion of their civil rights. It's so juvenile!
There are certainly plenty of things to complain about these days. Not being able to copy the latest Britney Spears album is not something you should be getting so worked up over.
I say "probably" because no one really knows. No laws passed, no protests staged (hard to protest something you don't even know about), just government silently doing whatever it wants after slapping a "national security" label on it.
In other words, "groundless speculation."
The Bush administration doesn't have a really good record of keeping such programs under wrap. Why would this be any different?
That is, of course, assuming that the machine is working correctly and hasn't been tampered with, or that election workers aren't deliberately reporting false numbers.
I find it amusing that opponents of e-voting are so skeptical of the system's integrity, yet seem to have no similar concerns about the old methods.
You know that we agree that legal immigration should be much easier than it currently is. I don't, however, think it's unreasonable (and certainly not "racist") to filter out bad people who don't necessarily share the goals of the majority of immigrants coming here to make a better life for themselves.
I also don't think it's unreasonable to expect immigrants to assimilate into the culture they are joining. These days you can't even encourage immigrants to learn English without being branded a racist, even though doing so will greatly increase their chances to succeed here.
I'm sure you also realize that the big industries that exploit immigrant labor would fight such a "solution" harder and more effectively than any anonymous Slashdot racist.
Clearly, Democratic leadership feels the party has something to lose by impeaching Cheney, and they certainly aren't sharing that dirty little secret. Whatever that is, it should concern their supporters.
"Not sure what objection she has to impeaching Cheney though."
Indeed, you'd think that they would be eager to go after someone like Cheney. Clearly there are stronger motives than the will of the American people at work preventing this from happening. This should be of great concern to Democrat supporters.
"Please explain to me exactly *WHY* impeachment is not on the table."
Easy: because every House Democrat would be called to task and forced to take a stand. Obviously, their convictions ended the day they got (re-)elected.
This should serve as a perfect example to everyone who opposes Bush that what's good for the country isn't necessarily good for the Democratic Party. And it is clear where House Democrats first loyalties lie.
It amazes me that anyone takes these alarmist groups seriously. It's clear that they outright lie to raise publicity; at least they're admitting it now.
How then, I must ask, do they feel this sort of practice helps their cause?? Does credibility and trust mean nothing to them? Aren't they the least bit concerned that their lying will cause people to start doubting the worthiness of their efforts?
I realize that a lot of people value rhetoric and good intentions over accuracy and truth. But with such tactics, how can any reasonable person consider the likes of Greenpeace anything other than a fringe element whose care first and foremost about drawing attention to themselves.
Are moderators who were involved in The Post still perma-banned from moderation? If so, why?
Re:Moderation Tranparency... When?
on
Ask Rob Malda
·
· Score: 1
There should be an option to show you who moderated your post; at the very least when an editor does so.
"Overrated" and "Underrated"
on
Ask Rob Malda
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
What is the purpose for the "Overrated" and "Underrated" mods? They are exempt from metamoderation, and as such are an open invitation for abuse by moderators looking to bury opinions with which they disagree.
I'm still trying to figure out what social ill these things are supposed to cure. I won't perpetuate the popular stereotype of straw huts and rampant starvation and disease, but I don't buy into this assumption that African progress is being hindered by a lack of cheap computers, of all things.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it amusing how Slashbots consider restrictions on their ability to share media (which they disparage in the next breath as garbage) such an egregious invasion of their civil rights. It's so juvenile!
There are certainly plenty of things to complain about these days. Not being able to copy the latest Britney Spears album is not something you should be getting so worked up over.
I say "probably" because no one really knows. No laws passed, no protests staged (hard to protest something you don't even know about), just government silently doing whatever it wants after slapping a "national security" label on it.
In other words, "groundless speculation."
The Bush administration doesn't have a really good record of keeping such programs under wrap. Why would this be any different?
Of course, all it would take then to alter an election is a few organized volunteer election workers.
Or don't you think there are that many people out there who would risk significant jail time to rig an election in their favor?
In short, They Work."
That is, of course, assuming that the machine is working correctly and hasn't been tampered with, or that election workers aren't deliberately reporting false numbers.
I find it amusing that opponents of e-voting are so skeptical of the system's integrity, yet seem to have no similar concerns about the old methods.
You know that we agree that legal immigration should be much easier than it currently is. I don't, however, think it's unreasonable (and certainly not "racist") to filter out bad people who don't necessarily share the goals of the majority of immigrants coming here to make a better life for themselves.
I also don't think it's unreasonable to expect immigrants to assimilate into the culture they are joining. These days you can't even encourage immigrants to learn English without being branded a racist, even though doing so will greatly increase their chances to succeed here.
I'm sure you also realize that the big industries that exploit immigrant labor would fight such a "solution" harder and more effectively than any anonymous Slashdot racist.
Clearly, Democratic leadership feels the party has something to lose by impeaching Cheney, and they certainly aren't sharing that dirty little secret. Whatever that is, it should concern their supporters.
"Not sure what objection she has to impeaching Cheney though."
Indeed, you'd think that they would be eager to go after someone like Cheney. Clearly there are stronger motives than the will of the American people at work preventing this from happening. This should be of great concern to Democrat supporters.
"Please explain to me exactly *WHY* impeachment is not on the table."
Easy: because every House Democrat would be called to task and forced to take a stand. Obviously, their convictions ended the day they got (re-)elected.
This should serve as a perfect example to everyone who opposes Bush that what's good for the country isn't necessarily good for the Democratic Party. And it is clear where House Democrats first loyalties lie.
It's the new "Free".
Free as in Beer.
Free as in Speech.
Free as in Taxpayer-Subsidized.
Compared to who? People who don't download music, including people who don't give a shit about it?
People who have a greater interest in music buy more of it than those who don't? God Almighty, I hope my taxes didn't pay for this "study".
Why not? It's not as if Windows gets a pass around here when poorly-written 3rd-party apps cause a kernel dump.
It amazes me that anyone takes these alarmist groups seriously. It's clear that they outright lie to raise publicity; at least they're admitting it now.
How then, I must ask, do they feel this sort of practice helps their cause?? Does credibility and trust mean nothing to them? Aren't they the least bit concerned that their lying will cause people to start doubting the worthiness of their efforts?
I realize that a lot of people value rhetoric and good intentions over accuracy and truth. But with such tactics, how can any reasonable person consider the likes of Greenpeace anything other than a fringe element whose care first and foremost about drawing attention to themselves.
there is nothing wrong with cutting taxes as long as there is a corresponding cut in spending. We could use a lot of both.
"Here's what it really comes down to - as taxes decrease from one source, they must increase from another."
Why?
"Your tax burden in general should never be decreased - it's just a matter of how it's taken from you."
Why?
Perhaps I'm taking you out of context, but to suggest that taxes should never be decreased... well it's just wrong.
The prevailing groupthink tells me that taxes are good, and the internet is good, but taxes on the internet are bad!
That violates the very laws of multiplication, and could threaten the universe as we know it!
Indeed, what comprehensive source of all things relevant is missing An Elephant Makes Love to a Pig?
Wikipedia is going downhill because it's full of stipid shit like that.
"Does there need to be conflict and controversy?"
Welcome to Slashdot! Please, let me take your coat...
...under what part of "Do no evil." does this fall?
"It happened twice because the girl I was with thought it was funny so she did it again."
Ummm.... where do I start?
I predict that the burnt wreck will mysteriously get lost in the mail. Game over.
Are moderators who were involved in The Post still perma-banned from moderation? If so, why?
There should be an option to show you who moderated your post; at the very least when an editor does so.
What is the purpose for the "Overrated" and "Underrated" mods? They are exempt from metamoderation, and as such are an open invitation for abuse by moderators looking to bury opinions with which they disagree.
I'm still trying to figure out what social ill these things are supposed to cure. I won't perpetuate the popular stereotype of straw huts and rampant starvation and disease, but I don't buy into this assumption that African progress is being hindered by a lack of cheap computers, of all things.
What modern "computing power" is XP incapable of using?