And do you think middle-America would also think Islam wasn't non-Christian? After all, it only added new scriptures in addition to the Bible and interpreted some stuff a bit different.
Yeah, popular opinion is not always correct but the OP is right. Currently we have unpopular and uneducated decisions at just about ever turn, so yeah I'll take the popular and uneducated ones for change right about now.
If that was the case then he sure as hell should be saying that instead of just telling people they should stop distributing it just because he knows what's best for them.
Right, but to do that he doesn't even need the diff. You can release the same code under a different license, but the problem remains (for him) that he can't make what was already released under GPL disappear.
I mean, are they really going to top Ebola or HIV? Actually you could do much worse than those two. Ebola works far to quickly thus limiting the extent of it's outbreaks and HIV is relatively difficult to contract.
Well, the easy out there is that Animals are not entirely sentient. You know it's funny, that's exactly what the dolphins and chimpanzees say about humans.
No, that entirely depends on the placement, doesn't it? For maximum widespread destruction the bomb needs to be detonated at the right altitude, but if you want to do a lot of damage in a confined area then an explosion at ground level or lower is what you want (e.g. the nuclear bunker busters our government was considering early in the GWOT)
I got that from this thread on AT&T's U-Verse forum a few days ago. Their U-Verse package uses one of the apparently vulnerable (and, IMHO, otherwise fairly shitty) 2wire access points.
Disclaimer, I haven't yet done any verification of these claims on my own. I probably will if I get some free time sometime soon.
From the blog comments in the article:
@sami, @kimblin, @ruemere, @Webdesign, et al - any method that requires end users to switch between modes to get the page to "work right" is broken. Most users don't know about quirks mode, and don't (and shouldn't) need to care. Of course his mistake is in ignoring the fact that IE is broken either way, it doesn't matter if the user knows it or not.
And bringing up Sandy Berger was not partisan hackery on your part?
I did not just rattle off a list of Bush's wrongdoings, I was comparing them to Clinton's documented attempts at cooperation with Congressional oversight. Please provide one example of Bush doing the same if you think he has been equally cooperative. You can simplistically dismiss my short list of Bush's crimes against our nation if you like, and you can say their is nothing new under the sun but then how do you explain Bush's abysmal approval ratings. Maybe almost everyone in the country has figured out how exceptionally bad he is except for you.
As for taking sides, I question the reasonability of anyone who doesn't take a side in opposition to what's happened to our country over the past 7 years. So hell yeah I've taken a side against Bush.
BTW, what administration do you allege I am a suckup for? The closest I came to lavish praise for Clinton was acknowledging that he was a "fairly successful president". I'm no big fan of him personally, but facts are facts.
Nice try. How many millions of pages of subpoenaed documents did the Clinton administration turn over? How many hours did Clinton and others spend in hearings?
Yeah, Clinton lied about one personal and (and irrelevant to whitewater) matter when he should have just refused to answer the question. yeah, it was stupid of him to lie about it but it's also really pathetic how the Clinton haters blow it way out of proportion since it's all they seem to have on him. And by the way, in the end Clinton wasn't found guilty of anything.
Do you seriously want to compare Clinton and Bush's administrations when it comes to obstruction? So be it. This administration already has one person (Libby) tried and convicted for obstruction of justice. Several others (Meiers, Rove) were issued subpoenas and have ignored them in blatant contempt of Congress. Then you have Gonzales's who showed up to testified but lied, err conveniently forgot about everything he knew. In addition to the ignored subpoenas for testimony there have been many requests for documents that have also been ignored. And we can't forget about the millions of destroy... i mean accidentally overwritten emails and the countless other emails illegally sent using RNC accounts. Then we have the torture tapes, also destroyed despite being needed as evidence in ongoing investigations. That's just off the top of my head, so I'm sure I'm missing plenty.
You may now return to ignoring all the facts and say some foolishness about how beyond the pale the evil Clinton was.
I know you are being sarcastic, but there is nothing to prevent a state from using just such a system to decide electors Exactly right, and that would be bad. Just another of the many problems with the system.
Why any state would want to yield what little power it has in the process is beyond me. How the voters in a state where candidate A wins by a landslide would put up with all the electors voting for B based on how the rest of the country votes is unimaginable. I fully support that system because a popular vote is the way the President should be chosen, even if I don't support the winner. There are selfish reasons why many states would prefer that system as well. Most states votes in the US are already meaningless. If you live in a blue or a red state you may as well stay home on election day, it is only in the handful of swing states where your vote has any true impact on the results.
Another reason why states with higher populations would choose such a system is because they don't appreciate the votes of their fellow citizens in Alaska counting more than their own votes. If the results of the Presidential election could be forced to a straight popular vote than voters in those states would gain more influence over the elections, not less. Of course it is the voters in small states who are only interested in keeping their disproportionate influence who will be the big obstacle in changing the system.
It has worked for more than 200 years It failed us in 2000. Once is enough.
It is more complicated than a simple majority vote because the founders designed it that way for good reasons. The electoral system as it currently stands is certainly not what the founders had in mind. The electors were supposed to choose the best candidate with the results of the states general elections only being one factor in how their vote is decided. That system is not totally without merit and may have even worked well for a time, but any honest person would have to admit that the system doesn't work like that anymore.
These days pretty much all electoral votes go to the winner of the states popular vote. Because of that the benefits of not giving the general populace direct control of who is elected are entirely lost. What we are left with is something that is pretty much a popular vote except not all citizens are counted equally and sometimes the loser actually wins. I don't see how that is anything but a broken voting system.
The contingency plan for no clear winner in the electoral vote doesn't make the system any better than the system it should be replaced with, popular vote with ballots which allow for ranking of the candidates.
The electoral system in theory isn't all bad, and it may have even worked good when it was first implemented. In it's current state however, where the electors almost exclusively pick their votes based on the winner of their states popular vote it is in practice no more than an utterly broken popular vote where not all votes are counted equally and sometimes the loser wins.
I take it you got no other way to defend Bush then with discredited accusations about Clinton.
I know reality is tough for the few remaining Bush supporters, but face the facts. Clinton was a popular and fairly successful President who actually cooperated with investigators like Starr even though they were grasping at straws in an obvious witch hunt. Bush is a deceitful, unpopular, uncooperative failure. There is no comparison.
Slashdot Mirror
And do you think middle-America would also think Islam wasn't non-Christian? After all, it only added new scriptures in addition to the Bible and interpreted some stuff a bit different.
Yeah, popular opinion is not always correct but the OP is right. Currently we have unpopular and uneducated decisions at just about ever turn, so yeah I'll take the popular and uneducated ones for change right about now.
Really? I'm trying real hard, but I don't see how "freedom requires religion" could in any way be considered secular.
You: I've had difficulty doing any one thing at a time Them: in the long term, they may cause [our ability to focus] to atrophy."
Only the non-bullshit ones.
It was Indiana actually.
If that was the case then he sure as hell should be saying that instead of just telling people they should stop distributing it just because he knows what's best for them.
Right, but to do that he doesn't even need the diff. You can release the same code under a different license, but the problem remains (for him) that he can't make what was already released under GPL disappear.
I think you are severely underestimating just how fun it is to piss you off!
No, that entirely depends on the placement, doesn't it? For maximum widespread destruction the bomb needs to be detonated at the right altitude, but if you want to do a lot of damage in a confined area then an explosion at ground level or lower is what you want (e.g. the nuclear bunker busters our government was considering early in the GWOT)
Fear of death? Fair enough. Certain death on the other hand, I'm willing to negotiate in those circumstances.
And besides, in what weirdo world is having access to massively destructive weapons an inalienable right?
I got that from this thread on AT&T's U-Verse forum a few days ago. Their U-Verse package uses one of the apparently vulnerable (and, IMHO, otherwise fairly shitty) 2wire access points.
Disclaimer, I haven't yet done any verification of these claims on my own. I probably will if I get some free time sometime soon.
Worse. Apparently the problem is that the password can be changed by a simple HTML request without knowing the current password.
Gee, why do you suppose it is that every time the question is asked the same answer is given? I just can't imagine why that might be.
And bringing up Sandy Berger was not partisan hackery on your part?
I did not just rattle off a list of Bush's wrongdoings, I was comparing them to Clinton's documented attempts at cooperation with Congressional oversight. Please provide one example of Bush doing the same if you think he has been equally cooperative. You can simplistically dismiss my short list of Bush's crimes against our nation if you like, and you can say their is nothing new under the sun but then how do you explain Bush's abysmal approval ratings. Maybe almost everyone in the country has figured out how exceptionally bad he is except for you.
As for taking sides, I question the reasonability of anyone who doesn't take a side in opposition to what's happened to our country over the past 7 years. So hell yeah I've taken a side against Bush.
BTW, what administration do you allege I am a suckup for? The closest I came to lavish praise for Clinton was acknowledging that he was a "fairly successful president". I'm no big fan of him personally, but facts are facts.
Nice try. How many millions of pages of subpoenaed documents did the Clinton administration turn over? How many hours did Clinton and others spend in hearings?
Yeah, Clinton lied about one personal and (and irrelevant to whitewater) matter when he should have just refused to answer the question. yeah, it was stupid of him to lie about it but it's also really pathetic how the Clinton haters blow it way out of proportion since it's all they seem to have on him. And by the way, in the end Clinton wasn't found guilty of anything.
Do you seriously want to compare Clinton and Bush's administrations when it comes to obstruction? So be it. This administration already has one person (Libby) tried and convicted for obstruction of justice. Several others (Meiers, Rove) were issued subpoenas and have ignored them in blatant contempt of Congress. Then you have Gonzales's who showed up to testified but lied, err conveniently forgot about everything he knew. In addition to the ignored subpoenas for testimony there have been many requests for documents that have also been ignored. And we can't forget about the millions of destroy... i mean accidentally overwritten emails and the countless other emails illegally sent using RNC accounts. Then we have the torture tapes, also destroyed despite being needed as evidence in ongoing investigations. That's just off the top of my head, so I'm sure I'm missing plenty.
You may now return to ignoring all the facts and say some foolishness about how beyond the pale the evil Clinton was.
Another reason why states with higher populations would choose such a system is because they don't appreciate the votes of their fellow citizens in Alaska counting more than their own votes. If the results of the Presidential election could be forced to a straight popular vote than voters in those states would gain more influence over the elections, not less. Of course it is the voters in small states who are only interested in keeping their disproportionate influence who will be the big obstacle in changing the system. It has worked for more than 200 years It failed us in 2000. Once is enough. It is more complicated than a simple majority vote because the founders designed it that way for good reasons. The electoral system as it currently stands is certainly not what the founders had in mind. The electors were supposed to choose the best candidate with the results of the states general elections only being one factor in how their vote is decided. That system is not totally without merit and may have even worked well for a time, but any honest person would have to admit that the system doesn't work like that anymore.
These days pretty much all electoral votes go to the winner of the states popular vote. Because of that the benefits of not giving the general populace direct control of who is elected are entirely lost. What we are left with is something that is pretty much a popular vote except not all citizens are counted equally and sometimes the loser actually wins. I don't see how that is anything but a broken voting system.
The contingency plan for no clear winner in the electoral vote doesn't make the system any better than the system it should be replaced with, popular vote with ballots which allow for ranking of the candidates.
The electoral system in theory isn't all bad, and it may have even worked good when it was first implemented. In it's current state however, where the electors almost exclusively pick their votes based on the winner of their states popular vote it is in practice no more than an utterly broken popular vote where not all votes are counted equally and sometimes the loser wins.
They support it for other people obviously. The US can do whatever they want because... 9/11.
I take it you got no other way to defend Bush then with discredited accusations about Clinton.
I know reality is tough for the few remaining Bush supporters, but face the facts. Clinton was a popular and fairly successful President who actually cooperated with investigators like Starr even though they were grasping at straws in an obvious witch hunt. Bush is a deceitful, unpopular, uncooperative failure. There is no comparison.
That's not at all the same circumstances.