One thing I don't really understand (I'm European) is how religious fundamentalism is compatible with a "small government" party.
Fear is the uniting element. For years, the conservative party here has been using FUD to scare people into voting for them. Realizing that religious fundamentalists live on fear, it was a marriage made in heaven. Plus, the Republican party is no longer conservative. They may be morally conservative but no longer fiscally conservative. They were responsible for the largest growth in government since the great society. A shame really.
The US is in desperate need of good PR and Obama could help us a lot with that.
Ten months ago, I would have agreed with you. I'd have said that was one of our biggest problems. But now, given the current state of the economy, war, etc...I think we need a hell of a lot more than charisma. I don't think either candidate has a true plan to deal with all the issues. I think they're both lying weasels that would say/do anything to get elected, and I believe we're not better off with one or the other. (Just like always) It doesn't mean I don't have my pick, but in the end I understand that this one vacant position getting filled doesn't have a chance to change *anything* that wouldn't have changed anyways.
For some reason the U.S. has the most expensive and the least efficient health care system of all developed nations.
Citation required.
So it's better to have a lower life expectancy, a higher child mortality rate and a bigger fiscal burden, and be ideologically pure than just implementing something that has been proven to actually work?
I think the overwhelming idea is that given the way our government runs *anything*, it's impossible to imagine how they would provide health care for all citizens in any efficient manor. They can't even pave the roads properly and so I don't possibly see how they would manage health care either. And for what it's worth, it's not like you can't walk into any hospital in the united states and get treated with no money. You might not be able to get a physical but any type of emergency will not go untreated in this country. Even managed illnesses are covered.
That's, of course, discounting all the other valid theories about what socialized medicine would do to the fabric of our nation. Increased taxes, less incentive for doctors to be doctors, less medical innovation, etc. etc. etc.
Yes, but you miss my point. Average Joe, the guy with a good job, and a family, and everything to live for is going to hesitate to throw all that away. More to the point, however, is that going up against armed men requires more than just a knowledge that you're going to die: you have to be willing to die now, and not hope that someone else will be brave enough to do what has to be done. Furthermore, you really should have some idea of how to fight.
I see what you're saying but at the same time, I think everybody understands that there's a high probability they'll be dying anyways. You can have a choice, fight to perhaps live or die while being used as a weapon.
Well, history has shown us that occasional revolutions and civil wars are also necessities to social balance. After a few centuries of relative freedom, we seem to be going back toward Big Power these days. In a few more centuries (or decades in this era of disposable empires), the necessities of the ruling class will be counterbalanced by others. Let's just hope that the 21st century will allow us to do it cleanly this time...
I really couldn't agree more. I think that over the years, everyone in almost every line of work has looked to technology to make their job easier/better/more accurate and that includes big government. I am really shocked if TFS is correct. There would be no way that any society would allow the government to record all telephone conversations or photo copy all regular mail, so why is this form of communication OK to archive? Because of its relative ease.
MythTV, or just get the thing to take the video feed from cable to your PC and record away (they're like 50$ cards IIRC). Infinite recording, and no monthly fee. Why pay Tivo to do it free?
I've got both a sweet MythTV system and Tivo (actually two Tivos) and I have to say, I still like the TiVo better. It's worth the $20 I pay for the two of them. Plus, pretty soon, Myth TV users will be paying *something* per month for listings, which have become harder and harder to come by for free.
So... what? My relatively new laptop had no end of problems with it (and when I say relatively new, I mean a gaming model I bought in January of 2007). What exactly are you suggesting here, that we should have to upgrade our hardware and/or software every time we get a new version of an OS?
XP is over 8 years old. Yes. If you have 8 year old hardware and/or software, then yeah. You need to upgrade that shit. Sorry.
The people I've heard not complain about Vista use their computers as document editors and web-browsers. However, I have to remind you: my pocket watch can do this, and it costs less than a single install of Vista. To butcher an old phrase: Vista is about as useful as a tit on a bull, and about twice as ugly.
I develop software. I manage a medium size business infrastructure. I debug applications. I use vista. I like it better than XP. So now, you know somebody who uses it in a way that you can't use your phone.
B.S. If my HP all-in-one runs fine with OS X and Ubuntu, and ran fine with XP but won't work in Vista, it is Microsoft's fault. You have to remember, one of the main reasons Vista even exists is to sell new hardware . It certainly wasn't necessary to replace XP for any other reason, lots of people like XP just fine and it still does pretty much everything consumers expect a modern OS to do. No, Vista was designed to literally require people to have to buy new stuff, as well as to make the **AA's job a bit easier. Either of which is more than ample reason to reject it.
People said the same thing about Windows 2000 when it replaced NT and then XP when it replaced Windows 2000. Your HP all-in-one will run on vista just fine when HP gets off their ass to write a proper driver for it.
My daughter bought a new laptop and hates Vista. My dad bought a new laptop and after 2 weeks STILL can't install a printer driver
So Vista sucks because your father (who must be what? 60? 70?) can't install a printer driver? I get the nagging issue, which BTW goes away when you.... um.... turn it off.
I can do better than that. I pushed out 37 vista business installs about 4 months ago to all of our workstations here, and I've not had a single problem with it. The bees seems to love it and, for me, it's a heck of a lot easier to manage. I watch all this bashing going on and quite frankly, I don't get it. I understand that YMMV, but it seems like Vista is getting hammered but nobody's really tried it. I've heard a lot of "It won't run on my hardware" and "It won't run our winfax95" but c'mon...It's 2008.
You may now commence with the typical bullshit bashing...
I do know that nobody accessed our SERVERS to check the reports that the same SERVERS had made.
See that's another violation of the standard. Since your employer was a provider or merchant, they would have been required to have a QSA actually physically audit the network, which includes much more than just a network scan? Who was doing your compliance?
And the point you miss... those aren't burst speeds; they are constant. You can run at 20Mb continuously all day long with no drop in speed, no indication you're approaching any limit, and no consequence of passing the limit.
Ok. Great. Go next door to your neighbor's house and hook up a vpn to your house. Tell me (vpn overhead aside) how you think your 20mb is rocking. Try to sustain 3Mb for oh...an hour. Let me know how that works out for you.
"Free Speech" doesn't mean that you get to say whatever you want to say all the time without consequences. Realistically, what was the worse outcome, being suspended for a couple of days or having the principle sue her and her parents for slandering him?
Not only that, but the student only got suspended. I didn't find anything to support the claim that the student doesn't still maintain the right to keep the myspace page up. So she still has the right to free speech, and also the right to suffer the consequences for he actions. Do you think it would be a violation of your free speech rights if you got fired for putting a myspace page up with slander or libel about your boss?
Read Obama's books then come back and tell me that. If you haven't, you're just as uninformed as anyone.
Yeah, because if he says it, it must be true. And he'll be the only politician that does what he says he believes in and never change his opinions. He is, after all, the chosen one. Oh wait, what's this article about again...nevermind.
IMO: Although the pile of democratic nations has been growing, when the ability of U.S. voters to influence their government is considered, the U.S. voter is close to the bottom of that pile!
Well, I'd like to point out that the United States is not a democracy, it's a republic. So, there's that.
Slashdot Mirror
One thing I don't really understand (I'm European) is how religious fundamentalism is compatible with a "small government" party.
Fear is the uniting element. For years, the conservative party here has been using FUD to scare people into voting for them. Realizing that religious fundamentalists live on fear, it was a marriage made in heaven. Plus, the Republican party is no longer conservative. They may be morally conservative but no longer fiscally conservative. They were responsible for the largest growth in government since the great society. A shame really.
The US is in desperate need of good PR and Obama could help us a lot with that.
Ten months ago, I would have agreed with you. I'd have said that was one of our biggest problems. But now, given the current state of the economy, war, etc...I think we need a hell of a lot more than charisma. I don't think either candidate has a true plan to deal with all the issues. I think they're both lying weasels that would say/do anything to get elected, and I believe we're not better off with one or the other. (Just like always) It doesn't mean I don't have my pick, but in the end I understand that this one vacant position getting filled doesn't have a chance to change *anything* that wouldn't have changed anyways.
For some reason the U.S. has the most expensive and the least efficient health care system of all developed nations.
Citation required.
So it's better to have a lower life expectancy, a higher child mortality rate and a bigger fiscal burden, and be ideologically pure than just implementing something that has been proven to actually work?
I think the overwhelming idea is that given the way our government runs *anything*, it's impossible to imagine how they would provide health care for all citizens in any efficient manor. They can't even pave the roads properly and so I don't possibly see how they would manage health care either. And for what it's worth, it's not like you can't walk into any hospital in the united states and get treated with no money. You might not be able to get a physical but any type of emergency will not go untreated in this country. Even managed illnesses are covered.
That's, of course, discounting all the other valid theories about what socialized medicine would do to the fabric of our nation. Increased taxes, less incentive for doctors to be doctors, less medical innovation, etc. etc. etc.
Kill me.
Yes, but you miss my point. Average Joe, the guy with a good job, and a family, and everything to live for is going to hesitate to throw all that away. More to the point, however, is that going up against armed men requires more than just a knowledge that you're going to die: you have to be willing to die now, and not hope that someone else will be brave enough to do what has to be done. Furthermore, you really should have some idea of how to fight.
I see what you're saying but at the same time, I think everybody understands that there's a high probability they'll be dying anyways. You can have a choice, fight to perhaps live or die while being used as a weapon.
United 93 was a test. The next time, the plane won't go down while the bad guys get killed.
Yep. Had to happen once, but won't happen twice.
Well, history has shown us that occasional revolutions and civil wars are also necessities to social balance. After a few centuries of relative freedom, we seem to be going back toward Big Power these days. In a few more centuries (or decades in this era of disposable empires), the necessities of the ruling class will be counterbalanced by others. Let's just hope that the 21st century will allow us to do it cleanly this time...
I really couldn't agree more. I think that over the years, everyone in almost every line of work has looked to technology to make their job easier/better/more accurate and that includes big government. I am really shocked if TFS is correct. There would be no way that any society would allow the government to record all telephone conversations or photo copy all regular mail, so why is this form of communication OK to archive? Because of its relative ease.
Looks like smart people are going for Obama, shocking.
Well he is, after all, the chosen one.
You can in the UK .... it's only in the good ol' US of A that companies can charge for freely available information ...
Not the information, only the transfer of the information. Those pesky server and bandwidth costs and all...
or you could get a PC based PVR and pay nothing for a tivo alike with more features no restrictions and nor subscription required?
Unless, of course, you need television listings, which you can't get for free anymore. So there goes that idea.
MythTV, or just get the thing to take the video feed from cable to your PC and record away (they're like 50$ cards IIRC). Infinite recording, and no monthly fee. Why pay Tivo to do it free?
I've got both a sweet MythTV system and Tivo (actually two Tivos) and I have to say, I still like the TiVo better. It's worth the $20 I pay for the two of them. Plus, pretty soon, Myth TV users will be paying *something* per month for listings, which have become harder and harder to come by for free.
So... what? My relatively new laptop had no end of problems with it (and when I say relatively new, I mean a gaming model I bought in January of 2007). What exactly are you suggesting here, that we should have to upgrade our hardware and/or software every time we get a new version of an OS?
XP is over 8 years old. Yes. If you have 8 year old hardware and/or software, then yeah. You need to upgrade that shit. Sorry.
The people I've heard not complain about Vista use their computers as document editors and web-browsers. However, I have to remind you: my pocket watch can do this, and it costs less than a single install of Vista. To butcher an old phrase: Vista is about as useful as a tit on a bull, and about twice as ugly.
I develop software. I manage a medium size business infrastructure. I debug applications. I use vista. I like it better than XP. So now, you know somebody who uses it in a way that you can't use your phone.
B.S. If my HP all-in-one runs fine with OS X and Ubuntu, and ran fine with XP but won't work in Vista, it is Microsoft's fault. You have to remember, one of the main reasons Vista even exists is to sell new hardware . It certainly wasn't necessary to replace XP for any other reason, lots of people like XP just fine and it still does pretty much everything consumers expect a modern OS to do. No, Vista was designed to literally require people to have to buy new stuff, as well as to make the **AA's job a bit easier. Either of which is more than ample reason to reject it.
People said the same thing about Windows 2000 when it replaced NT and then XP when it replaced Windows 2000. Your HP all-in-one will run on vista just fine when HP gets off their ass to write a proper driver for it.
My daughter bought a new laptop and hates Vista. My dad bought a new laptop and after 2 weeks STILL can't install a printer driver
So Vista sucks because your father (who must be what? 60? 70?) can't install a printer driver? I get the nagging issue, which BTW goes away when you .... um .... turn it off.
I have Vista Home and I like it.
I can do better than that. I pushed out 37 vista business installs about 4 months ago to all of our workstations here, and I've not had a single problem with it. The bees seems to love it and, for me, it's a heck of a lot easier to manage. I watch all this bashing going on and quite frankly, I don't get it. I understand that YMMV, but it seems like Vista is getting hammered but nobody's really tried it. I've heard a lot of "It won't run on my hardware" and "It won't run our winfax95" but c'mon...It's 2008.
You may now commence with the typical bullshit bashing...
I do know that nobody accessed our SERVERS to check the reports that the same SERVERS had made.
See that's another violation of the standard. Since your employer was a provider or merchant, they would have been required to have a QSA actually physically audit the network, which includes much more than just a network scan? Who was doing your compliance?
And the point you miss... those aren't burst speeds; they are constant. You can run at 20Mb continuously all day long with no drop in speed, no indication you're approaching any limit, and no consequence of passing the limit.
Ok. Great. Go next door to your neighbor's house and hook up a vpn to your house. Tell me (vpn overhead aside) how you think your 20mb is rocking. Try to sustain 3Mb for oh...an hour. Let me know how that works out for you.
"Free Speech" doesn't mean that you get to say whatever you want to say all the time without consequences. Realistically, what was the worse outcome, being suspended for a couple of days or having the principle sue her and her parents for slandering him?
Not only that, but the student only got suspended. I didn't find anything to support the claim that the student doesn't still maintain the right to keep the myspace page up. So she still has the right to free speech, and also the right to suffer the consequences for he actions. Do you think it would be a violation of your free speech rights if you got fired for putting a myspace page up with slander or libel about your boss?
So is he from South or North Kenwood?
I'll give you one guess.
Read Obama's books then come back and tell me that. If you haven't, you're just as uninformed as anyone.
Yeah, because if he says it, it must be true. And he'll be the only politician that does what he says he believes in and never change his opinions. He is, after all, the chosen one. Oh wait, what's this article about again...nevermind.
IMO: Although the pile of democratic nations has been growing, when the ability of U.S. voters to influence their government is considered, the U.S. voter is close to the bottom of that pile!
Well, I'd like to point out that the United States is not a democracy, it's a republic. So, there's that.
Um, Barack lives right here on the South Side of Chicago. And brother, let me tell you, this ain't the suburbs.
Are you serious? He lives in Kenwood!!! Maybe geographically it's not the suburbs but c'mon dude. It's Kenwood! You know, Kenwood
Ummmmmm ... yes. Until such time as they start writing laws in a language that the average person can read and understand and so, can defend themselves
How about just smarter average people?
Yeah, I like to see how it works here in SE Louisiana where we have extreme humidity, basically a swamp.
Probably like everything else. Extremely slow and lazy. ( I couldn't help myself )