Freeware is a great concept. Advertiser supported software that doesn't cost you anything, but is it really free? All you have to do is give your name, address, phone, e-mail, and some other general information. Not a bad trade-off, right? But, what if your personal information was also stored elsewhere on your hard drive, and transmitted your personal data via the Internet back to advertisers in exchange for more advertising? Ah, now is it free or is it spyware aka adware. Spyware is Internet jargon for Advertising Supported software (Adware). It is a way for shareware authors to make money from a product, other than by selling it to the users. There are several large media companies Web3000, EverAd, and Aureate, just to name a few, that offer to place banner ads in their products in exchange for a portion of the revenue from banner sales. This way, you don't have to pay for the software and the developers are still getting paid. If you find the banners annoying, there is usually an option to remove them, by paying the regular licensing fee. The problem with Adware is the concept of reporting your Internet surfing habits back home for data collection purposes. If this bothers you, then removing the spyware from your system might be a consideration. Go Hip and Bonzi Buddy don't necessarily tranmit data back home but they are hard to remove Internet programs that seem to find their way onto your hard drive as well, that's why I've included them here.
When the USA was formed, it was created by the coalescing of thirteen separate countries. The founding fathers were far more concerned about he equality and rights of these separate states than they were about the equality and rights of the individual citizens. That concern survives to this day. Senate power is allocated equally to the various states. This means a citizen is a small state such as Rhode Island has more voting power than a citizen in a large state like California. You could assign senators by state population the way the house works, but then the senate would keep expanding. Perhaps it would be better to give each senator as many votes in the senate as there are voters in his state.
The founding fathers were also concerned that every region had a say in the running of the country. This means that a citizen living in a sparsely populated part of the country such as Utah has more voting power in the House Of Representatives than a citizen in a densely populated state like New Jersey.
The founding fathers did not believe in democracy as we know it today. They did not trust the "mob" to govern. They wanted a republic where well-educated elected representatives made all the decisions. The masses should never be permitted to directly make any decision. There were no national newspapers, no TV, and no Internet. The average citizen did not even know the names of the candidates. So the founding fathers set up an indirect system called the electoral college to elect the president. A group of impartial, non-party-affiliated, educated men, who were familiar with the presidential candidates, made the selection. In the constitution, the electors are not even required to vote for the candidate they are pledged to. 27 states have laws to bind them, but these laws may be unconstitutional. The penalty is typically a $100 fine, and being kicked out of the party. The constitution even made provision for a state legislature to select these electors in any way it saw fit. Legally the state legislature need not even hold an election to choose the college of electors. This harks back to the days when the states were nervously considering the possibility of union, and wanted to retain every possible power to themselves. The state legislatures originally directly chose the electors for president, without holding an election.
Further, in most states there is a winner-take-all-the-electors rule, which leads occasionally to the strange anomaly that the president chosen is the one with the fewest popular votes.
Modern Americans may consider these founding fathers' notions in violation of the democratic principles of "all men are born equal" and "one man; one vote". However, as Jimmy Carter pointed out, these rules are almost impossible to change because they are burned into the constitution. They require 38 states to agree before they can be changed. Small states and sparsely populated regions are not about to give up their privileged positions, even if they recognise that privilege is unfair.
Jimmy Carter said the most we can hope for is an abandonment of the winner-take-all-rule, because that change does not require a constitutional amendment, and because it can be done a state at a time. If states apportioned presidential electors in proportion to votes, most of the probability the anomaly of the winner in the electoral college getting the fewest popular votes would disappear.
The disturbing fact is that a repetition of the problems of 2000 now seems likely, even as many other nations are conducting elections that are internationally certified to be transparent, honest and fair.
There is a simple solution to Florida's dilemma about how to determine which ex-felons are permitted to vote: get rid of the state's shameful felony disenfranchisement laws. It is more than ironic that as the United States ostensibly seeks to promote democracy overseas, hundreds of thousands of tax-paying Florida residents are forced to stand mute on election day. Florida is one of only 7 states that permanently deny all ex-offenders access to the voting booth. The consequences there are stark: some 600,000 Floridians are unable to vote, including more than 17 percent of the state's black male adults. Some legislators raise bogus arguments about virtue being a prerequisite to voting--as though all those who have the franchise have led blemish-free lives. Underneath such pious sentiments are calculated partisan politics. Simply put, Republicans fear Democrats would benefit if Florida became a state that honored the fundamental precept of a free nation: the right to vote. Five years ago, Human Rights Watch documented the outrageous consequences nationwide of felony disenfranchisement laws, including those in Florida. At the time, few Americans were even aware that nearly one and a half million ex-felons in this country were denied voting rights even long after they completed their criminal sentences. Somewhat naively perhaps, we assumed that once this fact became known, legislators across the country would promptly step up to make the necessary legislative fix.
There has been some progress--but not in Florida. Despite legislative debates and lawsuits, Florida stubbornly retains the law denying ex-felons the vote for life. An eighteen-year-old convicted of a single drug offense can never vote no matter how exemplary her subsequent life. The only option is to navigate the frustrating and cumbersome process of seeking a pardon or restoration of civil rights from the governor--and this is not much of an option. The current backlog of people seeking to have the vote restored is estimated to be more than 40,000. The right to vote is a fundamental human right. It can be frustrated by hanging chads and butterfly ballots. But Florida's felony disenfranchisement laws keep far more Florida residents from choosing their elected officials than these infamous--but not legislatively mandated--problems.
Main Entry: 2gay Pronunciation: 'gA Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French faggot 1 a : likes to take it up the ass : HOMO b : like to suck on penis 2 a : homo-like b : gay Slashdot AC
What a surprise. Linux is usually reserved for Arab Muslim terrorists (I know that's redundant) that program the EPROMS for bombs and virii for Winblows. Oh well, you get what you deserve.
SCO is dishonest because the mojority of the company is run by Arab/Muslims, the absolute most dishonest and dangerous group of people on the face of the earth.
I don't know how to tell you this, but blackguardism is something to be prevented, not promoted. If you disagree with my claim that once you cut through the bravado, misconceptions, and ignorance, you'll find that the right thing to do in this case is determined by various vectors of forces in an endless multidimensional tug-of-war involving ropes leading out in many directions, then read no further. Sony wants to dissolve the bonds that join individuals to their natural communities. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is Sony's gossamer grasp of reality. Sony talks loudly about family values and personal responsibility, but when it comes to backing up those words with actions, all it does is reduce human beings to the status of domestic animals.
What this underlines, I think, is that some insufferable, pernicious reprobates actually insist that sectarianism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. This is the kind of muddled thinking that Sony is encouraging with its disquisitions. Even worse, all those who raise their voice against this brainwashing campaign are denounced as effrontive bigamists. I am making a pretty serious accusation here. I am accusing Sony of planning to contaminate or cut off our cities' water supply. And I don't want anyone to think that I am basing my accusation only on the fact that my current plan is to establish democracy and equality. Yes, Sony will draw upon the most powerful fires of Hell to tear that plan asunder, but it is the height of arrogance and untruthfulness for it to imply that genocide, slavery, racism, and the systematic oppression, degradation, and exploitation of most of the world's people are all completely justified. Think about it, and I'm sure you'll agree with me. Sony wants to hammer a few more nails into the coffin of freedom. What does it think it is? I mean, it doesn't want us to speak out against the most pea-brained tax cheats I've ever seen. It would rather we settle for the meatless bone of nativism.
Curiously, if Sony can't be reasoned out of its prejudices, it must be laughed out of them. If Sony can't be argued out of its selfishness, it must be shamed out of it. I want to enable patriots to use their freedoms to save their freedoms. That may seem simple enough, but Sony asserts that men are spare parts in the social repertoire -- mere optional extras. That assertion is not only untrue, but a conscious lie. I suppose it's predictable, though terribly sad, that squalid, audacious dweebs with stronger voices than minds would revert to stolid behavior. But the word "honesty" does not exist in Sony's vocabulary. Sad, but true. And it'll only get worse if Sony finds a way to lower our standard of living. Given Sony's current mind-set, negativism is dangerous. Sony's yawping version of it is doubly so. Not only have what I call cocky, treacherous hell-raisers decided to glorify their actions by dressing them up as moral and righteous prerogatives, but their reinterpretations of historic events are being debated as though they were actually reasonable. I truly believe that we should push the envelope on our knowledge of the world around us, and I have formalized my commitment to this high ideal by ensuring that I always foster mutual understanding. While this letter hasn't provided anything in the way of a concrete plan of action, it may help us focus our thinking a little better when we do work out a plan. For now, we must investigate Sony's salacious principles, ideals, and objectives. I will indubitably be happy to have your help in this endeavor.
Slashdot Mirror
Freeware is a great concept. Advertiser supported software that doesn't cost you anything, but is it really free? All you have to do is give your name, address, phone, e-mail, and some other general information. Not a bad trade-off, right? But, what if your personal information was also stored elsewhere on your hard drive, and transmitted your personal data via the Internet back to advertisers in exchange for more advertising? Ah, now is it free or is it spyware aka adware.
Spyware is Internet jargon for Advertising Supported software (Adware). It is a way for shareware authors to make money from a product, other than by selling it to the users. There are several large media companies Web3000, EverAd, and Aureate, just to name a few, that offer to place banner ads in their products in exchange for a portion of the revenue from banner sales. This way, you don't have to pay for the software and the developers are still getting paid. If you find the banners annoying, there is usually an option to remove them, by paying the regular licensing fee.
The problem with Adware is the concept of reporting your Internet surfing habits back home for data collection purposes. If this bothers you, then removing the spyware from your system might be a consideration.
Go Hip and Bonzi Buddy don't necessarily tranmit data back home but they are hard to remove Internet programs that seem to find their way onto your hard drive as well, that's why I've included them here.
When the USA was formed, it was created by the coalescing of thirteen separate countries. The founding fathers were far more concerned about he equality and rights of these separate states than they were about the equality and rights of the individual citizens. That concern survives to this day. Senate power is allocated equally to the various states. This means a citizen is a small state such as Rhode Island has more voting power than a citizen in a large state like California. You could assign senators by state population the way the house works, but then the senate would keep expanding. Perhaps it would be better to give each senator as many votes in the senate as there are voters in his state.
The founding fathers were also concerned that every region had a say in the running of the country. This means that a citizen living in a sparsely populated part of the country such as Utah has more voting power in the House Of Representatives than a citizen in a densely populated state like New Jersey.
The founding fathers did not believe in democracy as we know it today. They did not trust the "mob" to govern. They wanted a republic where well-educated elected representatives made all the decisions. The masses should never be permitted to directly make any decision. There were no national newspapers, no TV, and no Internet. The average citizen did not even know the names of the candidates. So the founding fathers set up an indirect system called the electoral college to elect the president. A group of impartial, non-party-affiliated, educated men, who were familiar with the presidential candidates, made the selection. In the constitution, the electors are not even required to vote for the candidate they are pledged to. 27 states have laws to bind them, but these laws may be unconstitutional. The penalty is typically a $100 fine, and being kicked out of the party. The constitution even made provision for a state legislature to select these electors in any way it saw fit. Legally the state legislature need not even hold an election to choose the college of electors. This harks back to the days when the states were nervously considering the possibility of union, and wanted to retain every possible power to themselves. The state legislatures originally directly chose the electors for president, without holding an election.
Further, in most states there is a winner-take-all-the-electors rule, which leads occasionally to the strange anomaly that the president chosen is the one with the fewest popular votes.
Modern Americans may consider these founding fathers' notions in violation of the democratic principles of "all men are born equal" and "one man; one vote". However, as Jimmy Carter pointed out, these rules are almost impossible to change because they are burned into the constitution. They require 38 states to agree before they can be changed. Small states and sparsely populated regions are not about to give up their privileged positions, even if they recognise that privilege is unfair.
Jimmy Carter said the most we can hope for is an abandonment of the winner-take-all-rule, because that change does not require a constitutional amendment, and because it can be done a state at a time. If states apportioned presidential electors in proportion to votes, most of the probability the anomaly of the winner in the electoral college getting the fewest popular votes would disappear.
The disturbing fact is that a repetition of the problems of 2000 now seems likely, even as many other nations are conducting elections that are internationally certified to be transparent, honest and fair.
There is a simple solution to Florida's dilemma about how to determine which ex-felons are permitted to vote: get rid of the state's shameful felony disenfranchisement laws.
It is more than ironic that as the United States ostensibly seeks to promote democracy overseas, hundreds of thousands of tax-paying Florida residents are forced to stand mute on election day.
Florida is one of only 7 states that permanently deny all ex-offenders access to the voting booth. The consequences there are stark: some 600,000 Floridians are unable to vote, including more than 17 percent of the state's black male adults.
Some legislators raise bogus arguments about virtue being a prerequisite to voting--as though all those who have the franchise have led blemish-free lives. Underneath such pious sentiments are calculated partisan politics. Simply put, Republicans fear Democrats would benefit if Florida became a state that honored the fundamental precept of a free nation: the right to vote.
Five years ago, Human Rights Watch documented the outrageous consequences nationwide of felony disenfranchisement laws, including those in Florida. At the time, few Americans were even aware that nearly one and a half million ex-felons in this country were denied voting rights even long after they completed their criminal sentences. Somewhat naively perhaps, we assumed that once this fact became known, legislators across the country would promptly step up to make the necessary legislative fix.
There has been some progress--but not in Florida. Despite legislative debates and lawsuits, Florida stubbornly retains the law denying ex-felons the vote for life. An eighteen-year-old convicted of a single drug offense can never vote no matter how exemplary her subsequent life. The only option is to navigate the frustrating and cumbersome process of seeking a pardon or restoration of civil rights from the governor--and this is not much of an option. The current backlog of people seeking to have the vote restored is estimated to be more than 40,000.
The right to vote is a fundamental human right. It can be frustrated by hanging chads and butterfly ballots.
But Florida's felony disenfranchisement laws keep far more Florida residents from choosing their elected officials than these infamous--but not legislatively mandated--problems.
Fuck off, you donkey raping shit eater.
Main Entry: 2gay
Pronunciation: 'gA
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French faggot
1 a : likes to take it up the ass : HOMO b : like to suck on penis
2 a : homo-like b : gay Slashdot AC
That's like saying you like Africa, but not the Black people in it.
Racist.
He probably thought he could build a bomb out of it.
People hate us because we are successful. Sad but true.
NASA should be focusing their attention on how to kill all muslims with space lasers. Do humanity a service, NASA!
You stupid PC fucks make me laugh. The shit you go through...
Weak.
What else should I expect from a molested brat in denial.
Number one reason your father molested you:
Your sister was too ugly!
What a surprise. Linux is usually reserved for Arab Muslim terrorists (I know that's redundant) that program the EPROMS for bombs and virii for Winblows. Oh well, you get what you deserve.
Spoken like a true Arab intellectual! (I know that's an oxymoron for the ages)
You Allah ass-sniffing, muslim, child-raping, 5 times a day praying, carpet riders piss me the fuck off.
Excuse me. I'm off to the book store to pick up a copy of the Quran; I ran out of TOILET paper.
I hate when Arabs get on a computer. They start spewing shit like this.
Go suck Allah's dick, General cunt face.
The only thing worse would be if they were muslim. But the filthy muslim are moving on from the west sadly.
SCO is dishonest because the mojority of the company is run by Arab/Muslims, the absolute most dishonest and dangerous group of people on the face of the earth.
I don't know how to tell you this, but blackguardism is something to be prevented, not promoted. If you disagree with my claim that once you cut through the bravado, misconceptions, and ignorance, you'll find that the right thing to do in this case is determined by various vectors of forces in an endless multidimensional tug-of-war involving ropes leading out in many directions, then read no further. Sony wants to dissolve the bonds that join individuals to their natural communities. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is Sony's gossamer grasp of reality. Sony talks loudly about family values and personal responsibility, but when it comes to backing up those words with actions, all it does is reduce human beings to the status of domestic animals.
What this underlines, I think, is that some insufferable, pernicious reprobates actually insist that sectarianism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. This is the kind of muddled thinking that Sony is encouraging with its disquisitions. Even worse, all those who raise their voice against this brainwashing campaign are denounced as effrontive bigamists. I am making a pretty serious accusation here. I am accusing Sony of planning to contaminate or cut off our cities' water supply. And I don't want anyone to think that I am basing my accusation only on the fact that my current plan is to establish democracy and equality. Yes, Sony will draw upon the most powerful fires of Hell to tear that plan asunder, but it is the height of arrogance and untruthfulness for it to imply that genocide, slavery, racism, and the systematic oppression, degradation, and exploitation of most of the world's people are all completely justified. Think about it, and I'm sure you'll agree with me. Sony wants to hammer a few more nails into the coffin of freedom. What does it think it is? I mean, it doesn't want us to speak out against the most pea-brained tax cheats I've ever seen. It would rather we settle for the meatless bone of nativism.
Curiously, if Sony can't be reasoned out of its prejudices, it must be laughed out of them. If Sony can't be argued out of its selfishness, it must be shamed out of it. I want to enable patriots to use their freedoms to save their freedoms. That may seem simple enough, but Sony asserts that men are spare parts in the social repertoire -- mere optional extras. That assertion is not only untrue, but a conscious lie. I suppose it's predictable, though terribly sad, that squalid, audacious dweebs with stronger voices than minds would revert to stolid behavior. But the word "honesty" does not exist in Sony's vocabulary. Sad, but true. And it'll only get worse if Sony finds a way to lower our standard of living. Given Sony's current mind-set, negativism is dangerous. Sony's yawping version of it is doubly so. Not only have what I call cocky, treacherous hell-raisers decided to glorify their actions by dressing them up as moral and righteous prerogatives, but their reinterpretations of historic events are being debated as though they were actually reasonable. I truly believe that we should push the envelope on our knowledge of the world around us, and I have formalized my commitment to this high ideal by ensuring that I always foster mutual understanding. While this letter hasn't provided anything in the way of a concrete plan of action, it may help us focus our thinking a little better when we do work out a plan. For now, we must investigate Sony's salacious principles, ideals, and objectives. I will indubitably be happy to have your help in this endeavor.
Usually when I fuck your mom, she wants me to pee in her, before I ejaculate. You know how dry old women get.
Heh, as if Islamists believe in evolution. "Oh, but it's part of their culture!" Fucking sand-niggers.
I thought this was real. They use the unproven theory of evolution to explain this away. Bah.
I will continue to think what I always thought was the cause of hiccups. We hiccup to prevent demons from entering our bodies.
Wow, anyone ever tell you you're a people person? Women tell me that talking to you is like getting fist fucked by a rhino.
You guys are so fucking smart. By 'guys' I mean faggots, and by 'smart' I mean lame.
Eat pengiun shit you ass spelunker.
Yeah as soon as someone simply grafts Altivec to the x86 architecture, the PC's will be st00pid bl4z1ng fast!!@#
You stupid fuck face.