your reply indicates you do not understand the issue. the federal government has no constitutional right to forbid the states from passing such a law.
the founders believed i the great american experiment...lots of freedom for states to disagree and to try different things. if my state does something i don't agree with, i can always move to another state. if the fed does something i disagree with, i have no choice. THAT is the difference.
here's another example--gun rights. i support the second ammendment. it's part of the constitution and an integral part of a free nation. HOWEVER, i would not want the supreme court to rule that states can't pass certain gun control laws (even laws i really disagree with). if some state wanted to outlaw all firearms by civilians, i would support their right to do so--the federal government should not interfere.
the constitution of the united states (with bill of rights) is exactly that...the constitution of the united states. it says that the united states can not take away the right to bear arms. it doesn't say that a particular state can't--the state has its own constitution.
people are inherently powerhungry. this is true at all levels of government, and it has caused congressmen and supreme court judges to take control of things which they have no right to. the founders understood all of this. unfortunately, most americans don't.
i don't have any children either, but when i was 16 i had to work to help my mother pay the tuition for my private school because the public schools were terrible. i referred to "my child" in the generic sense--perhaps i should have said "one's child."
yes, i'm a little bothered that i'm now paying property taxes for other children when i had to work for my own tuition for a school that had less money to work with than the local public schools and offered a higher quality education. i was also in private schools because my mother was a public school teacher so she knew first hand how messed up the public schools were (that varies by location--i don't use it as a bases to judge all public schools). in the end, the system only hurts the children and that's my primary concern. a voucher system would make public schools maintain a quality level high enough to attract students (and keep funding).
i pulled education as one example, but there are others such as public transportation and any form of corporate welfare. the main point is that everything the government touches becomes bloated, inefficient, and often corrupt. it's a necessary evil for the duties assigned to the government by the constitution (such as protecting our borders), but it should be used sparingly.
a corporation is under higher restrictions than the government, making it generally better behaved. as a key example, the corporation much show profit or it will die. the government can run huge debt and raise taxes, forcing every american to either pay or go to jail.
when a corporation has its own police force capable of throwing you in jail for trying to opt out of their services, the evils of privitization will match that of the federal government.
they will not agree on every issue. they agree that the federal goverment should stay out--that's one issue. that's the issue that brings them together.
take roe vs. wade as a basic example. you can be as pro-choice as they come and still believe (correctly) that the federal government has no constitutional right to forbid states from outlawing abortion within their borders. the problem is that it takes integrity to see the distinction. few people will fight to stop the federal government from doing something they agree with, regardless of the constitution.
the biggest monoply is the government. just take schools as an example. if i want to send my child to a private school (basically, use a competing product), i have to pay for the public school education he's not using and THEN pay for the private school on top of that.
if i don't pay my phone bill, my phone is shut off. if i don't pay my taxes, i go to jail. privatization is better.
americans make america great, not the other way around. at its best, government just makes sure everyone plays fair.
just wondering--couldn't there be a way for all submitted stories to be accepted, just as all posts are accepted? let the moderators catagorize the stories and bump them up and down. the average view will then simply set a threashold that allows him to see the number of stories he feels like reading. that would actually make life easier on taco et al.
maybe slashdot *should* have a zealot option, but it doesn't. so, be prepared for "troll," "flamebait," or (if you're lucky) "offtopic."
i find the evidence of evolution to be highly suspect, and there is a fair amount of evidence against it. i would encourage you to well research your claims and cite objective sources. creationism is considered a joke because people don't typically do that. i've tried to research the subject matter, but find no objective and reliable source to verify many creationist claims.
honestly, imo, it's a topic where a lot of people need to cool down and re-evaluate their assumptions.
heh--could have been worse. i had a friend in college who, when finding a logged-in terminal, would send an email to everyone on their list coming out of the closet.
All these attempts to stop illegal P2P are going wrong and they will fail. It was wrong to go after Napster, which could be used for legal or illegal purposes (emphasis on *could*). It's wrong to allow big media to DoS people.
Here's how you stop it...
All you need is some FBI agents in DC to login to Napster/Gnutella/Morpheus and download something copywritten. They play the file to confirm that it is illegal. Then, they look up the ISP and send a letter to the ISP saying that someone has done illegal activity from one of their IPs and a fine of $500 has been issued. The ISP can either turn over the phone number and account information of the offending individual who committed the crime, or pay the fine themselves. Repeat until there is no longer a problem. It's true that they could get around this some by going through other countries, but it would still be very effective, in my opinion.
although i know we're talking opensource recipies, some good things can result from use of propritary modules. making the pizza this way essentially requires only two things: money and the dominos module.
if your dominos module is not installed or not activiated, you need to do so before continuing. it is a proprietary module which you can find with any phone book. installation and activation requires a phone. you will then need to supply a few environment variables during install of the dominos module such as your name, address, and phone number. then, you will be promped for pizza parameters such as size and toppings. the activation function returns a monitary float argument, which you must store for later use.
now, wait for the dominos module to execute its preparation and delivery functions. this may take as long as 30 minutes, depending on the speed of the dominos module and its current workload.
when complete, the dominos module will issue a doorbell interrupt. the resulting function will take a single monitary arugument and return the pizza object if the argument is larger than the float returned during activation.
at this point, the operation should be complete and you will have your pizza. although not for the opensource purist, this method generally delivers relatively high quality with reasonable execution time.
1) More demand for corn = higher prices for corn = less government money. cake.
the point is that it costs much more to make ethanol from corn than people are willing to pay. the government has to subsidize the production because it would never last in a free economy. whether or not taxpayers should pay relatively large amounts of money so that relatively small amounts go to farmers rather than oppressive oil-producing countries is a philisophical discussion i'm not going to touch here. my point is that increased ethanol use will, in our current economic climate, require more government money because every incremental gallon sold is paid for partially by the buyer and partially by the taxpayers. increase the number sold and you have to increase the tax dollars spent. it is true that, because of economies of scale, the tax payer would pay a little less for each additional gallon sold if the goverment stays on top of things and is quick to adjust the taxpayer contribution, but it is far, far from hitting zero. therefore, each addition gallon sold means more tax dollars spent.
no arguments on 2, 3, or 4 because i don't know cars or agriculture, just economics.
The difference between softspam (e-spam) and hardspam (snail-spam) is expense to the spammer. A typical piece of hardspam probably costs the company $0.50 in material costs, assembly costs, and postage. This expense needs to be justified which causes them to self regulate their spamming, to some extent. Softspamming is nearly free by comparison. They get the biggest list they can and one guy sits down to write one email and off it goes--annoying hundreds of thousands. The softspammer has little motivation to justify his list. If 90% of the addresses are bad, it's still a good list because 10% of them are good. Hardspammer need to worry more about keeping their lists up and focusing their spam on people more likely to respond.
When I receive hardspam, I know that the sender at least had to pay for me to receive it. With softspam, that isn't the case because 1's and 0's are free. I know they still had to pay for bandwidth which adds up, but compared to hardspamming expenses it's nearly free.
I did not intend to imply that the Declaration of Independence had any legal bearing. The notion that "revoking" it makes us part of England was merely a joke which I placed in a different post from this more serious one.
In this post, I referenced the Declaration of Independence as evidence that the founding fathers would not have objected to referencing God in the Pledge. As you said, they're all dead now.
What I'm refuting is not the notion that "under God" should be removed from the Pledge. I am refuting the notion that the words of the constitution clearly dictate it that it should be removed. To believe that the constitution clearly separates church and state to such an extent that "under God" should be removed from the constitution is simply incorrect. It is only popular current interpretation which wants it removed.
To me, this seems a clear point. However, popular opinion seems to be that it is incredibly obvious that the constitution forbids these words. I'm just saying it isn't so obvious. If fact, the constitution could very well be (and, for most of American history, was) interpreted to allow such things. The constitution was also interpreted to allow slavery so I'm not about to necessarily favor old interpretation over new.
Remember, the person to whom I was replying stated that saying the nation is "under God" is like "pissing on the Constitution."
Something I really find strange in all this is that, as a child, I never even thought of that "under God" as being a religious reference. I always thought it was a figurative way of saying that no other nation or governing body has control over the United States. I don't mean to make a point of that that; I just find that interpretation interesting
Besides all of that, scotch, I would like to say that I appreciated your messages. They were much more calm and lacking of profane flaming than I usually find around here. I am thinking to myself about to what degree the constitution can be interpreted and changed one generation to the next. Since I'm undecided on the subject, I've tried not to give an opinion on whether or not those words should or should not be removed. What I am sure about, as I've already stated many times, is that the constitution does not necessarily mandate one or the other.
If the phrase, "under God" makes you feel like the constitution is violated, how do you feel about the Declaration of Independance which states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights?"
Here's a highly unpopular opinion, but I'll toss it out there for what it's worth (probably very little)...
The United States is based upon upon a certain set of very general moral beliefs. We are created equal. We are free to hold our opinions and to publish them. We are free to conduct business. We are free to elect our leaders.
These freedoms are based, according to the Declaration of Independence, upon the notion that God (however you define him) made people with rights. The laws of the United States are based upon a moral sense which is given authority by something greater than ourselves.
This ever-present greater authority, expressing it's will upon our nation by the moral sense created in us, is summed up as the word, "God," in the Pledge and on our money. It is also referenced in countless presidential speaches given over the generations and in stone memorials and government buildings all over our nation. For an example, see a transcript of President Lincoln's second inaugural address (thanks to google, here it is: http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/sp eeches/inaug2.htm)
To most Americans, what I've just described is a foreign concept. The landscape of the nation has changed quite a bit. Whether it be for better or worse is not a topic I'm going to touch here.
I believe it is wrong for any court to cite the constitution as forbidding the Pledge words, "under God." In order to agree with their logic, you must believe that today's court has better understanding of the constitution than those who drafted and signed it. This court decision is a reflection of current American opinion, which is different from the founders', and nothing more.
Well, no responses from slashdotters, but I attended the finals yesterday (Friday) and today (Saturday). Very, very nice (Especially Rach. 2 today--wow). I don't know if the piano sounds quite the same at the other end, but my feeling is that there are few people as resisting of technology as hardcore classical musicians (eg the judges). If it's good enough for them then I probably can't tell the difference. Just my two cents on that one. Again, great performances and a lot of fun. I hope I'm not the only cultured geek in the twin cities:)
I'll be attending the e-competition both tonight (6:00pm) and tomorrow night (7:30pm). I may attend Sunday, but probably won't. Tomorrow has all the MUST SEE pieces for me. I'm a huge geek and in geek circles, but I've also played the piano for 17.5 years now (I'm 24 now) and none of my geek friends are into this kind of thing. Anyway, I thought it may be fun if a group of cultured slashdotters grab some of the cheaper tickets and split parking expenses. I just called the ticket office and there are plenty available. Can't guarentee if/how this will work out, but I thought I'd send some last-minute feelers out there. Write to piano_e_competition@yahoo.com if interested and I might see you there!
finally! i have a simple name i can legally use for those clear things i use to look outside. i was really getting tired of saying, "take a look out the transparent viewing portal" or "please close the invisible atmospheric circulation inhibitor."
i don't hear complaints that bockbuster video doesn't have an adult section. i don't hear complaints that barnes and noble doesn't have an adult section. i don't hear compaints that the disney channel doesn't show adult material. i don't hear complaints that compusa doesn't sell adult software. these companies made specific choices not to carry such materials and cingular can similarly make the same decision if they choose. why is the medium of the internet so unique that people complain when not every company will provide every subject matter? so, if you're the type who just can't wait long enough to get to your home computer in order to look at porn (and god help you if this is the case), find another provider.
Since when does it make sense for "Shut Down" to be classified under a little picture of an Apple?
here's one thing i've always wondered--what sense does it make for "Shut Down" to be under the word, "Start"?!?!...just a minor tangent that i found funny.
Slashdot Mirror
your reply indicates you do not understand the issue. the federal government has no constitutional right to forbid the states from passing such a law.
the founders believed i the great american experiment...lots of freedom for states to disagree and to try different things. if my state does something i don't agree with, i can always move to another state. if the fed does something i disagree with, i have no choice. THAT is the difference.
here's another example--gun rights. i support the second ammendment. it's part of the constitution and an integral part of a free nation. HOWEVER, i would not want the supreme court to rule that states can't pass certain gun control laws (even laws i really disagree with). if some state wanted to outlaw all firearms by civilians, i would support their right to do so--the federal government should not interfere.
the constitution of the united states (with bill of rights) is exactly that...the constitution of the united states. it says that the united states can not take away the right to bear arms. it doesn't say that a particular state can't--the state has its own constitution.
people are inherently powerhungry. this is true at all levels of government, and it has caused congressmen and supreme court judges to take control of things which they have no right to. the founders understood all of this. unfortunately, most americans don't.
i don't have any children either, but when i was 16 i had to work to help my mother pay the tuition for my private school because the public schools were terrible. i referred to "my child" in the generic sense--perhaps i should have said "one's child."
yes, i'm a little bothered that i'm now paying property taxes for other children when i had to work for my own tuition for a school that had less money to work with than the local public schools and offered a higher quality education. i was also in private schools because my mother was a public school teacher so she knew first hand how messed up the public schools were (that varies by location--i don't use it as a bases to judge all public schools). in the end, the system only hurts the children and that's my primary concern. a voucher system would make public schools maintain a quality level high enough to attract students (and keep funding).
i pulled education as one example, but there are others such as public transportation and any form of corporate welfare. the main point is that everything the government touches becomes bloated, inefficient, and often corrupt. it's a necessary evil for the duties assigned to the government by the constitution (such as protecting our borders), but it should be used sparingly.
a corporation is under higher restrictions than the government, making it generally better behaved. as a key example, the corporation much show profit or it will die. the government can run huge debt and raise taxes, forcing every american to either pay or go to jail.
when a corporation has its own police force capable of throwing you in jail for trying to opt out of their services, the evils of privitization will match that of the federal government.
they will not agree on every issue. they agree that the federal goverment should stay out--that's one issue. that's the issue that brings them together.
take roe vs. wade as a basic example. you can be as pro-choice as they come and still believe (correctly) that the federal government has no constitutional right to forbid states from outlawing abortion within their borders. the problem is that it takes integrity to see the distinction. few people will fight to stop the federal government from doing something they agree with, regardless of the constitution.
the biggest monoply is the government. just take schools as an example. if i want to send my child to a private school (basically, use a competing product), i have to pay for the public school education he's not using and THEN pay for the private school on top of that.
if i don't pay my phone bill, my phone is shut off. if i don't pay my taxes, i go to jail. privatization is better.
americans make america great, not the other way around. at its best, government just makes sure everyone plays fair.
That robot really sucks.
I'm sorry. I'm really sorry.
If he's right, his sign will say "will produce for food."
Just a heads up for all you armchair physics experts, I'm sending this message on May 15, 2048 ...so don't laugh!
Now, I've gotta send an email to 1999 warning myself not to buy that VA stock. "Yeah, I know it's dropped all the way down to 50...don't buy it."
just wondering--couldn't there be a way for all submitted stories to be accepted, just as all posts are accepted? let the moderators catagorize the stories and bump them up and down. the average view will then simply set a threashold that allows him to see the number of stories he feels like reading. that would actually make life easier on taco et al.
well, just an idea.
maybe slashdot *should* have a zealot option, but it doesn't. so, be prepared for "troll," "flamebait," or (if you're lucky) "offtopic."
i find the evidence of evolution to be highly suspect, and there is a fair amount of evidence against it. i would encourage you to well research your claims and cite objective sources. creationism is considered a joke because people don't typically do that. i've tried to research the subject matter, but find no objective and reliable source to verify many creationist claims.
honestly, imo, it's a topic where a lot of people need to cool down and re-evaluate their assumptions.
Solution is easy! Hire me! C/C++/Java
d ex_files/re sume.pdf
Resume:
http://danwoods.linkedresources.com/in
heh--could have been worse. i had a friend in college who, when finding a logged-in terminal, would send an email to everyone on their list coming out of the closet.
All these attempts to stop illegal P2P are going wrong and they will fail. It was wrong to go after Napster, which could be used for legal or illegal purposes (emphasis on *could*). It's wrong to allow big media to DoS people.
Here's how you stop it...
All you need is some FBI agents in DC to login to Napster/Gnutella/Morpheus and download something copywritten. They play the file to confirm that it is illegal. Then, they look up the ISP and send a letter to the ISP saying that someone has done illegal activity from one of their IPs and a fine of $500 has been issued. The ISP can either turn over the phone number and account information of the offending individual who committed the crime, or pay the fine themselves. Repeat until there is no longer a problem. It's true that they could get around this some by going through other countries, but it would still be very effective, in my opinion.
Just my $0.02
although i know we're talking opensource recipies, some good things can result from use of propritary modules. making the pizza this way essentially requires only two things: money and the dominos module.
if your dominos module is not installed or not activiated, you need to do so before continuing. it is a proprietary module which you can find with any phone book. installation and activation requires a phone. you will then need to supply a few environment variables during install of the dominos module such as your name, address, and phone number. then, you will be promped for pizza parameters such as size and toppings. the activation function returns a monitary float argument, which you must store for later use.
now, wait for the dominos module to execute its preparation and delivery functions. this may take as long as 30 minutes, depending on the speed of the dominos module and its current workload.
when complete, the dominos module will issue a doorbell interrupt. the resulting function will take a single monitary arugument and return the pizza object if the argument is larger than the float returned during activation.
at this point, the operation should be complete and you will have your pizza. although not for the opensource purist, this method generally delivers relatively high quality with reasonable execution time.
1) More demand for corn = higher prices for corn = less government money. cake.
the point is that it costs much more to make ethanol from corn than people are willing to pay. the government has to subsidize the production because it would never last in a free economy. whether or not taxpayers should pay relatively large amounts of money so that relatively small amounts go to farmers rather than oppressive oil-producing countries is a philisophical discussion i'm not going to touch here. my point is that increased ethanol use will, in our current economic climate, require more government money because every incremental gallon sold is paid for partially by the buyer and partially by the taxpayers. increase the number sold and you have to increase the tax dollars spent. it is true that, because of economies of scale, the tax payer would pay a little less for each additional gallon sold if the goverment stays on top of things and is quick to adjust the taxpayer contribution, but it is far, far from hitting zero. therefore, each addition gallon sold means more tax dollars spent.
no arguments on 2, 3, or 4 because i don't know cars or agriculture, just economics.
The difference between softspam (e-spam) and hardspam (snail-spam) is expense to the spammer. A typical piece of hardspam probably costs the company $0.50 in material costs, assembly costs, and postage. This expense needs to be justified which causes them to self regulate their spamming, to some extent. Softspamming is nearly free by comparison. They get the biggest list they can and one guy sits down to write one email and off it goes--annoying hundreds of thousands. The softspammer has little motivation to justify his list. If 90% of the addresses are bad, it's still a good list because 10% of them are good. Hardspammer need to worry more about keeping their lists up and focusing their spam on people more likely to respond.
When I receive hardspam, I know that the sender at least had to pay for me to receive it. With softspam, that isn't the case because 1's and 0's are free. I know they still had to pay for bandwidth which adds up, but compared to hardspamming expenses it's nearly free.
I did not intend to imply that the Declaration of Independence had any legal bearing. The notion that "revoking" it makes us part of England was merely a joke which I placed in a different post from this more serious one.
In this post, I referenced the Declaration of Independence as evidence that the founding fathers would not have objected to referencing God in the Pledge. As you said, they're all dead now.
What I'm refuting is not the notion that "under God" should be removed from the Pledge. I am refuting the notion that the words of the constitution clearly dictate it that it should be removed. To believe that the constitution clearly separates church and state to such an extent that "under God" should be removed from the constitution is simply incorrect. It is only popular current interpretation which wants it removed.
To me, this seems a clear point. However, popular opinion seems to be that it is incredibly obvious that the constitution forbids these words. I'm just saying it isn't so obvious. If fact, the constitution could very well be (and, for most of American history, was) interpreted to allow such things. The constitution was also interpreted to allow slavery so I'm not about to necessarily favor old interpretation over new.
Remember, the person to whom I was replying stated that saying the nation is "under God" is like "pissing on the Constitution."
Something I really find strange in all this is that, as a child, I never even thought of that "under God" as being a religious reference. I always thought it was a figurative way of saying that no other nation or governing body has control over the United States. I don't mean to make a point of that that; I just find that interpretation interesting
Besides all of that, scotch, I would like to say that I appreciated your messages. They were much more calm and lacking of profane flaming than I usually find around here. I am thinking to myself about to what degree the constitution can be interpreted and changed one generation to the next. Since I'm undecided on the subject, I've tried not to give an opinion on whether or not those words should or should not be removed. What I am sure about, as I've already stated many times, is that the constitution does not necessarily mandate one or the other.
If the phrase, "under God" makes you feel like the constitution is violated, how do you feel about the Declaration of Independance which states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights?"
p eeches/inaug2.htm)
Here's a highly unpopular opinion, but I'll toss it out there for what it's worth (probably very little)...
The United States is based upon upon a certain set of very general moral beliefs. We are created equal. We are free to hold our opinions and to publish them. We are free to conduct business. We are free to elect our leaders.
These freedoms are based, according to the Declaration of Independence, upon the notion that God (however you define him) made people with rights. The laws of the United States are based upon a moral sense which is given authority by something greater than ourselves.
This ever-present greater authority, expressing it's will upon our nation by the moral sense created in us, is summed up as the word, "God," in the Pledge and on our money. It is also referenced in countless presidential speaches given over the generations and in stone memorials and government buildings all over our nation. For an example, see a transcript of President Lincoln's second inaugural address (thanks to google, here it is: http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/s
To most Americans, what I've just described is a foreign concept. The landscape of the nation has changed quite a bit. Whether it be for better or worse is not a topic I'm going to touch here.
I believe it is wrong for any court to cite the constitution as forbidding the Pledge words, "under God." In order to agree with their logic, you must believe that today's court has better understanding of the constitution than those who drafted and signed it. This court decision is a reflection of current American opinion, which is different from the founders', and nothing more.
Gee--thanks a lot for challenging the moderators to change it--now it's "5 Insightful"
Well, no responses from slashdotters, but I attended the finals yesterday (Friday) and today (Saturday). Very, very nice (Especially Rach. 2 today--wow). I don't know if the piano sounds quite the same at the other end, but my feeling is that there are few people as resisting of technology as hardcore classical musicians (eg the judges). If it's good enough for them then I probably can't tell the difference. Just my two cents on that one. Again, great performances and a lot of fun. I hope I'm not the only cultured geek in the twin cities :)
I'll be attending the e-competition both tonight (6:00pm) and tomorrow night (7:30pm). I may attend Sunday, but probably won't. Tomorrow has all the MUST SEE pieces for me. I'm a huge geek and in geek circles, but I've also played the piano for 17.5 years now (I'm 24 now) and none of my geek friends are into this kind of thing. Anyway, I thought it may be fun if a group of cultured slashdotters grab some of the cheaper tickets and split parking expenses. I just called the ticket office and there are plenty available. Can't guarentee if/how this will work out, but I thought I'd send some last-minute feelers out there. Write to piano_e_competition@yahoo.com if interested and I might see you there!
finally! i have a simple name i can legally use for those clear things i use to look outside. i was really getting tired of saying, "take a look out the transparent viewing portal" or "please close the invisible atmospheric circulation inhibitor."
i don't hear complaints that bockbuster video doesn't have an adult section. i don't hear complaints that barnes and noble doesn't have an adult section. i don't hear compaints that the disney channel doesn't show adult material. i don't hear complaints that compusa doesn't sell adult software. these companies made specific choices not to carry such materials and cingular can similarly make the same decision if they choose. why is the medium of the internet so unique that people complain when not every company will provide every subject matter? so, if you're the type who just can't wait long enough to get to your home computer in order to look at porn (and god help you if this is the case), find another provider.
http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0205/14.xserve annc.php
this follow-up article has a little more info and a picture--looks titanium-like
Since when does it make sense for "Shut Down" to be classified under a little picture of an Apple?
...just a minor tangent that i found funny.
here's one thing i've always wondered--what sense does it make for "Shut Down" to be under the word, "Start"?!?!
Anyway have good fares to Switzerland?