Bush didn't write these documents. Someone else was claimed to write them. How can Bush deny that someone else did or did not do something? He can only talk about what he has done.
CBS's reputation is at stake. They must obtain and release the originals. That is the only way to satisfy the critics. As it stands now, it is blatantly obvious that CBS hasn't been checking their sources and as such, they can't be trusted to break stories.
Dr. Phil Bouffard (search on Google for who he is) says that the documents are at least 90% probability of being fake. He claims that the font used is Times New Roman, which is only available on computers. He claims that the number "4" proves this, as well as the "th" being very rare.
Folks, unless CBS produces the originals, Dr. Bouffard can't do any more investigation, and his analysis will remain.
Also, note that the documents that the White House produced were the same documents that CBS gave them. Hence, the White House makes no assertion of the document's legitimacy.
Since Bush made his military records available, and Kerry has not, you can search his documents yourself and determine whether he deserved to be discharged honorably or not.
A reporter called Byron York has written a tremendously accurate article on Bush's service. I suggest you read it.
http://www.thehill.com/york/090904.aspx
Notice this particular quote:
"In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots," [retired Col. William] Campenni says. "The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In '72 or '73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem."
Now go read the other side of the story, the side that actually reads the whole story, and make a decision.
Remember, President Bush has asked all the 527s to stop the mudslinging, including the SBVFT. He has also said that he thinks Kerry has served honorable, to which Republican audiences have cheered audibly. The Republicans officially do *NOT* question John Kerry's service.
Go read the original constitution. Originally, people didn't vote for the president. In fact, the people didn't have a say on how the president was chosen.
Article II, section 2, clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The legislature of a state chose the electors, not the people! The popular vote is just as important as the world-wide popular vote. It is irrelevant. All the states have delegated that responsibility to various systems. I believe Rhode Island and Maine appoint electors according to the proportion of the vote.
The electors assembled in their own states and chose two people to be president, one of which must not be from their state. (That's why Cheney moved to Wyoming and claimed residency there - he could not be voted as the second because he was a Texas resident.) They had to send the number of votes for each person, signed and sealed, to the federal government. Whereupon the president of the senate opens the envelopes and reads the votes. The one with the majority is the president. The second place is vice-president, and president of the senate. If there is a tie and both have majority, then the house decides who is president and who is vice-president. If no one gets a majority, then the house chooses one from the top five candidates. In the case the house is tied, the senate breaks the tie.
That's how the president was chosen at first. In fact, in the first election, nobody ran for president. However, George Washington won overwhelmingly. It was said that each of the electorates actually debated and took seriously their duty to choose a president. How I wish we elected representatives to choose the most important office in the land! And how I wish those people would debate and choose outside of the visibility of the people and legislatures the president!
Eventually, we got rid of the "second place is vice-president" rule by amendment because it always meant that the president of the senate was in opposition to the president, and the government was constantly gridlocked due to that.
When the Florida debacle occured, the Florida state legislature could've stepped in and changed the law permitting them to appoint electors without regard to the people's voice. That was their right under the constitution. Then they could've appointed their own electoral college and then sent them off to vote whichever way they pleased. However, because so few Americans have even read the simple document that our nation is built on, they refused to do so for fear of open rebellion. Instead, they allowed the courts to settle the matter.
Now, go read that document! You have to understand what is in it and what is not, and it is an easy read for techies like us. If we forget what checks and balances are in there, and why they are there, we are doomed to end up like France, Germany, Russia, or China one day.
I think the death toll is just another campaign ploy by the democrats. I'd be careful mentioning it, because you really are using their caskets as a device.
Why don't we count the number of Iraqi patriots who have died fighting insurgents and terrorists? They died defending their own country, trying to secure it to a point where they might actually get a free election. The insurgents and the terrorists are doing everything in their power to prevent this.
Shall we count the innocent victims of terrorism and insurgencies in Iraq as well? We know for a fact that the insurgents and terrorists have killed far more Iraqi civilians than the Americans did. They are doing more damage to their own country than an entire army did in taking it over.
The real numbers to be concerned about are the 200+ school children and faculties murdered brutally by Al Quaeda operatives in Russia. Did you read Putin's speech? He has joined Bush in the pre-emptive doctrine. No longer is he going to wait to respond to terrorism. He is going to hunt and destroy every known terrorist organization within his reach.
You should also count the passengers and victims of the terrorist's insane attack on September 11, 2001. Count the ones who were working to support their families in the twin towers, count the firefighters and police men who knowingly went into a building that was collapsing, that knowingly climbed higher and higher while everyone else was rushing to get out. Count the fathers and mothers, and count the children that had no family to return to that evening. And count the member of the military in the Pentagon that were taken that day as well.
But don't forget the other victims of terror, both American and abroad, who have been murdered in the name of Jihad. The USS Cole, the marine barracks, the embassy bombings, the first trade tower attack, the bombings in Southeast Asia, the Phillipines, etc.
I say every one of those 1,000 soldiers who volunteered to give their lives are heroes. It's because of them that we are fighting terrorists in Baghdad and not Manhattan. It's because of them that I can sit here and even talk about them without worrying about someone walking into my office with a bomb strapped to his belt. Would I have supported Bush if I knew in 1 1/2 years later 1,000 of this country's bravest and most patriotic would give their lives to execute the plan? Hell yes.
Iraq isn't over until we have peaceful elections and stability. It isn't over until we have completed the transition from a people enslaved to a despot to a people free from terror. It isn't over until the seeds of democracy are planted in the Middle East. Iraq is our one hope to solve the terrorist problem and to bring peace and prosperity to that area of the world. If we succeed there, we can succeed in Iran, Syria, Libya, and surrounding areas. Democracy will spread like wildfire in that region, like it did in the civilized world 200 years ago.
Where will the terrorists turn for new recruits when all the people in the Middle East have a voice? Why will the blow themselves up when they can run for office or vote their conscience? Why would they hate America when America is one of their biggest and most profitable trading partners?
His name is Fidel Castro. He is one of the last communist dictator holdouts. He is known for butchering his own people for political reasons. He single handedly turned Cuba from an island paradise to hell on earth.
Down in Cuba, they really do have problems with freedom. You are not allowed to say anything bad about the president. If you do, your patriotism is questioned, along with your family and friends. And when the questioning is done, you are executed. I think Fidel prefers a firing squad, but maybe good old-fashioned hangings are more popular nowadays.
When there is a political rally, you have to show up. Then the state-run media pronounces, "This must be something the people really care about, because millions marched in the street!"
They don't search you when you board a plane, because there are no planes to board and even if there were, they wouldn't let you board them. You area prisoner of the state. Up here in the US, we tell you, "If you like Cuba so much, why don't you go down there and live?" We tell you this because you are free to do so. But Cubans can't say, "If you like the US so much, why don't you go up there and live?" No, they say, "You like the US so much, maybe you'll like the firing squad more."
Down in Cuba, there are no mega-corporations. There aren't any high-paying white collar jobs either. You are a slave to the state. Young boys work in the fields since the time that they are 8. We call that child abuse, but down in Cuba, it's business as usual.
Medical care is pathetic. But it's state-run, so everyone has it. What's the last drug or medical procedure that Cuba has developed? Whereas up here we develop new drugs and procedures every day of the week.
People are so poor and so abused down there that they would rather risk their lives crossing the Gulf of Mexico to reach Florida, even at the risk of getting turned away by the US Coast Guard. And if they get caught by Fidel's brownshirts, they are summarily executed, along with their family.
And this is the kind of country that interrupts its regular state-run broadcast schedule to run Fahrenheit 911.
The last time we had a viable third party option
on
Nader Off Virginia Ballot
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The last time we had a viable third party we elected Abraham Lincoln. The third party was the Republican Party. The result was Civil War.
I really wish we had a no-party system as that would be the best. We should judge each candidate individually, not based on their party. They should go to Washington DC representing us, not their party.
If you haven't taken the time to register yet, if you don't know what district and precinct you are in, and if you have no idea who is running for your local school board, city council, state legislature, and the federal seats, then please do us all a favor and stay home.
If you don't know who Adam Smith is and why he is a significant figure in American history, what makes the Declaration of Independence so ground-shakingly important, what the first three words of the Constitution are, and why the two parties are called "Democrat" and "Republican", please stay home and don't vote.
Democracy isn't the right kind of government for you. You aren't educating yourself, you aren't taking up the responsibility of self government, and you are more than willing to give your power away. So rather than give it to some politicians who would love to have you vote for them despite your incredible ignorance, why don't you just let those voters who do know what they are voting for make the important decisions for you?
To all my fellow Americans, I would ask that if you want to participate in the process, participate fully and extensively. Don't just stop at voting. Go out and meet the candidates. Get to know the issues they are facing. Ask you school board, "What are the issues you are facing?" Ask your state legislators, "What can I do to help make our state better?" Go knock on doors and meet other people and tell them what you feel is important and listen to what they feel is important. That way, when you go out and vote, you aren't just guessing, you are making decisions that will have long-term effects.
The world of politics is mind-bogglingly big, and everyone is invited to participate. But if you would rather stay out of the party, then stay out all the way.
Not necessarily. Consider the performance of finding a document you wrote two years ago. How long does it take you to walk through the directory hierarchy browsing file names? How fast is the file search tool? Wouldn't it be faster if you could say "Show me the documents I wrote two years ago" and the refine the search or browse the results?
Storing data in a relational database is natural because it is more like the way we store data in our minds than the hierchical structures of traditional file systems.
Also, we allow a complete abstraction of the underlying database in relational systems. The database can store the data however it sees fit, and can arrange the data on disk without the users noticing a change.
I look forward to experimenting with a relational filesystem. I think it would be a wonderful thing to try out and see if it actually has the advantages I outlined above. I'd also like to see the actual disadvantages.
How many Americans still believe between the fictional connection between Saddam and 9/11?
We all agree that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11?
Assuming that we are, all I have to prove is a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and then a connection between Saddam and 9/11 based on those two facts.
From http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921- 3401r.htm:
In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.
The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.
The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
Not enough for you? Read http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic les/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp, which was cited by Dick Cheney himself as the best article to detail the link between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
Note also that the 9/11 commission found that there was no evidence to suggest that Iraq and Al Quaeda cooperated in the 9/11 event. However, there was evidence of Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperating.
Take the direct words of CIA Director George Tenet (a Clinton appointee) that "we have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade" and "credible information indicates that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression."
Take also the words of John Kerry, who said Hussein "supported and harbored terrorist groups." Some of those terrorists are obviously members of Al Qaeda. Zarqawi is perhaps the best example of an Al Qaeda senior operative operating in Iraq before, and now after, the war.
Also remember the Prague meeting, where Sept. 11 mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official before the attacks, or so it was claimed. While the administration doesn't claim to have evidence of these claims, the Czech government won't abandon their position on this issue.
Now, I've proven with evidence that there is a connection between Iraq and Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda. We take it as an agreed fact that Al Qaeda is directly responsible for 9/11. Now the question remains: Can we connect these two facts to attribute some blame of 9/11 to Saddam Hussein?
The one side says that yes, we can. The reasoning is that since Saddam supported Al Qaeda, they share the blame for what Al Qaeda has done. The other side says that no we can't because even thought Saddam supported Al Qaeda, they did so without knowing of 9/11.
I'll leave that one up to people's judgment. However, you cannot say that it absolutely is not true that Saddam and 9/11 is not linked. Nor can I say that it absolutely is true that they are linked. I can only say that if you believe that by supporting Al Qaeda, Saddam shares some of the blame of the things Al Qaeda has done, then Saddam shares some of the responsibility of 9/11.
X.Org is proof of Open Source advantages. XFree86 was a failing project, floundering under incompetent leadership. Under normal, closed source projects, this would spell doom for the software.
However, because it is open source, the project could be forked under new, competent leadership. And also, because of its licensing terms, people could switch to that fork without any negative repercussions.
Look at the progress X.Org has made in such a short period of time! How can anyone say that Open Source software is not superior?
Now that spammers are publishing SPF, it is going to be so much easier to track them down. At the very least, we will be able to deny accepting their email from the start.
Now that more and more email is being authenticated, we can start to say, "Ah, this domain claims responsibility for this email." Now that we can attach a responsible party to each email, we can hold them accountable. At the very least, their reputation as a spammer will be well-known. At the very best, their illegal spams will be detected by law enforcement, and the owner of the domain name will be caught. Oh, they don't have accurate records? Well then the registrar is going to be held accountable. Oh, did they use a stolen credit card to buy the domain? Oh, they bought hundreds or even thousands of domains? When they get caught, which they will, they will never see the outside world again.
This article is pure FUD, and is all wrong. When spammers publish SPF, we have won.
You are probably too blind to see your own shortsightedness. First off, you do realize that President George W. Bush singlehandedly rendered the Democrat party a bunch of asses? At every point in his career where democrats moved in to destroy his reputation, he turned it around and it ended up burning the democrats. Also, you do realize that President George W. Bush has conquered not just two countries, but several more, all with diplomacy? Pakistan and Libya are now working with us instead of against us. That wasn't true when Bush took office.
You have built up this image of an idiot who can barely wipe his own spittle, being controlled by powerful and more experienced people around him, and you don't see that your image is wrong. I think this is one of the most brilliant things he has done. He has allowed himself to appear a fool just so he can take all those who are stupid enough to believe that by surprise.
Remember in 2000, when Bush went in to meet Gore for the debates? Bush absolutely trashed Gore, and Gore came out looking like an absolute crazy idiot. Except when they were getting ready for the first debate, everyone was wondering if Bush would even survive the vast intellect and debate experience of Gore. Now we know that Bush is far more skilled with debate and diplomacy and politics than even I can understand.
So keep on misunderstimating the president, it's you who have been played the fool this entire time.
Yep, we have a right to kill the enemy in times of war. Isn't that the whole point of war - to destroy the enemy using whatever means necessary? The fact that we moved the battlefield from our homeland to their doorstep mneans that they were unable to defend themselves and that they should've done the math before they started blowing us up. I feel no pity for stupid people that declare war on the US without the resources to prosecute that war.
We didn't declare war on these people first. They declared war on us a long time ago, and we practically ignored them. Now that they have organized themselves to a point where they can inflict real harm on us, and are willing to do so, we have to stop them before they do.
I've noticed that dissent is becoming less and less tolerated.
Sure seems tame compared to the Ruby Ridge and Waco Complex / Davidian Cult incidences. At least they didn't blow the bike up and charge in there with the SWAT team.
You should also note that President Bush has the most diverse cabinet in terms of any way you look at it. Even in political ideology, there are members of the cabinet that don't agree with the president on any issue. It sure seems if there is something that is disappearing nowadays, it sure isn't tolerance and diversity. Perhaps it's just common sense and accurate information?
In any case how about: the right to a trial (Jose Padilla), the right to a lawyer (Shoe-bomber dude), the right to call witnesses (the so-called 20th hijacker), the right to hear evidence presented by the prosecution (the Gitmo detainees), the right to not have the government know what you read (at least not without getting a warrant; Patriot Act), freedom of assembly and to protest (e.g. in Central Park).
Enemy combatants don't have rights. Jose Padilla and the Shoe Bomber are classified as enemy combatants because they are associated with an entity we declared war on. Because they did not identify themselves with a uniform, they have no rights, not even under the Geneva Convention, with which we don't have to obey anyway because the Taliban and Al Qaeda aren't signatories. (Neither is Iraq, so we don't have to obey the GC there either.) In effect, they are like captured spies, and captured spies have no rights, not even under the GC. We can put them in a block of cement and sink them in the Gulf of Mexico, and there would be no legal violations, even without a trial.
The Gitmo detainees are all enemy combatants and prisoners of war. They have no rights, not even under the GC. (See above).
The Patriot Act doesn't override the need for warrants. Police and FBI still have to obtain them. The issuing of a warrant just isn't made public, so that our enemies can't watch government channels and determine when they have been discovered. We do the same in the war on drugs and the war on organized crime.
The City of New York owns Central Park, and so they get to determine who can do what there. As far as I can tell, the right to organize protests wasn't one of the rights that New York gave people in Central Park. The city is allowed to prevent people from "peacebly" assembling, where such assembly isn't peaceful and interferes with other's rights.
Sometimes the right thing to do is to break the law.
When you do decide it is right to break the law, you must accept the consequences that go with it. For instance, our Founding Fathers gave up their honor, fortune, lives, and families so that they could perhaps overthrow a tyrannical government.
If you do decide to face off with the federal, state, or local governments, you have better be prepared for the consequences of your actions. I won't feel any sympathy for you if you take them on and then complain because you lost your family, job, and reputation in doing so. You should've thought about the consequences of your actions before you did them.
I personally believe that the governments are still in the hands of the people, and the most efficacious way of changing said government is through the political process. There is no reason to jeopardize your life and liberty in an act of futility.
Your comparison between the brownshirts and Bush selling tickets to events is absurd. In fact, it is a logical fallacy - that of an ad hominem attack.
If I want to set the rules for my speaking engagement, it is my God-given right to do so. I can refuse to speak. The audience can refuse to attend. The host can refuse to allow me to speak or the audience to attend, since he owns or manages the building.
If I want to hold a meeting and only allow certain people to attend, then it is my God-given and Supreme Court-upheld right to do so. It's even written into the constitution as the right to peacebly assemble. That's why gays aren't allowed to be scoutmasters in the BSA. That's also why you can't just barge into a board meeting at your local friendly corporation.
I don't see how refusing to allow those who disagree with you and actually want to harm you (not necessarily physically) to attend your meetings where you want to rally your cause can be compared to the secret police of the German National Socialist Party (aka Nazi party). I would hardly expect John Kerry to allow me to attend his political rallies.
Re:Whose task is copy&paste
on
The Power of X
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Copy & Paste is not part of X. I wouldn't want it to be. Why should X know how to handle an HTML document and whether to paste just the text or the text and the images or the html code? Why should X be able to recognize URLs and email addresses that you copy, and suggest that you store them in your bookmarks or address book? Would you want copy and paste only in X applications? Why not from the text console as well?
Copy & Paste is not something X should even know about. Instead, it will be some other system service or a service initiated just for the user who is logged in.
To get Copy & Paste to work all we have to do is agree to a standard IPC method and a standard interface. Once we decide on that, it's a matter of getting all the apps up to the standard. So far, only Gnome and KDE have agreed to anything, and I think they both want a more general solution.
Yes, they probably think they have some control in the email arena. Unfortunately, they don't. All you have to do is look at the competing SPF-classic (spf.pobox.com) and you'll see that even Sender ID - a compromise between SPF and Caller ID - is failing.
People are wondering if Microsoft has any measurable quantity of email servers facing the real internet. Best practice is to put sendmail (or postfix or qmail or whatnot) between your exchange servers and the internet. Even now, people are proposing standards and practices that totally ignore how the exchange server functions, and the community for the most part doesn't seem to mind.
I think this is the "age of irrelevance" for Microsoft. The "real" internet doesn't even come into contact with Microsoft anymore. Companies don't have internet-facing Microsoft servers anywhere that I can tell. Those who do obviously aren't going to have much uptime. (Would you run a Microsoft server without a firewall between it and the internet?)
- SPF (http://spf.pobox.com) is the current email authentication protocol that is dominating the world.
- Microsoft proposed Caller ID which was never accepted by the community.
- Microsoft and SPF advocate Meng Weng Wong brokered a deal and formed Sender ID. Basically, SPF is intact, but some features of Caller ID are preserved as an optional extension.
The part of Caller ID that remains is the PRA or "Purported Responsible Authority". The PRA is deteremined by a complicated algorithm that I personally don't believe would work. The algorithm is intentionally vague in some areas, and the results are ultimately subjective. The intention of the PRA algorithm is to determine who wrote the email based on the email headers. As everyone knows, the email headers are spoofable. But the idea goes, if you can track down the PRA, then you can authenticate this email based on that, rather than just the last hop like SPF does.
The problem from day one has been the patent issue. Microsoft is in the process of patenting the PRA algorithm. This isn't a problem. The problem is that Microsoft refuses to put the patent in the public domain or license the patent such that anyone can use it except those who use patents against Microsoft. Both of those strategies are perfectly reasonable, and are pretty much what IBM does for most of its patents.
Microsoft originally wanted to get a copy of the software and a signature before they would grant a license. Well, that doesn't work for F/OSS. The MARID working group who is investigating various solutions to the email authentication protocol for the IETF has been petitioning Microsoft to revise or clarify their licensing procedure. Well, they finally have, and in so doing they have not made it F/OSS compatible.
Microsoft thinks they can bully us around, but they don't realize they are the small kid on the email block. Their Caller ID failed. Now Sender ID is going to fail because Microsoft refuses to participate.
But that's okay. The PRA algorithm isn't anything we'll need to solve the email authentication problem.
Most people don't like missiles, but access-to-space vehicles that operate at incredible altitudes are very useful. We have a lot of very useful satellites up there, and these "space planes" could make those satellites a lot cheaper. But you do have a point on the airline industry. The Feds waste endless sums of money bailing out companies that fail to innovate and offer infamously poor service, and then the feds turn around and regulate them into the ground to prevent terrorism. Flying, which was once a decadent luxury, is now a painful ordeal. The airline CEO's are riding a gold mine of federal bailout money while the taxpayers get screwed.
Sounds like you should cast your vote for Bush. He has repeatedly refused to bailout the airline and rail industries. The Republicans aren't into that corporate corruption and corporate welfare thing. Why do you think Enron, Anderson, and others are getting prosecuted now and not during the Clinton years, when they were at their heyday?
The Democrats talk a lot about how the Republicans are the party of the rich and how they are 100% behind the corporations. I have news for you. The richest senators are Democrats, not Republicans. Heck, John Kerry and co is worth more than ten times what Bush and co is worth! And the Republicans are all for letting wasteful, poorly managed companies take a dive to leave room for new, young, vibrant companies. The Democrats will do anything to keep their buddies' companies alive.
Where do the Republican's principle donations and loyalties lie? With homeowners and small business people. Why do you think that they are pursuing cutting the income tax for the highest wage earners? Because the highest wage
earners
are those who are
becoming
rich, not who are already rich. These are the small business people who finally get their break and are expanding their business to meet the demand. And the Republicans are pursuing to cut the death tax because it hurts the small business owners who don't have a team of fifty lawyers and accountants on hand to setup trust funds to make sure their cash gets into their childrens hands.
Democrats talk up a storm - but what have they done for the little guy? Look at their real record, and you'll see they're all about keeping the money in the hands of the rich, preventing others from getting rich, and keeping the poor man on the dole. This runs right along with their historic racist and tyrannical attitudes, which still persist with current members of the Senate. (The only member of the senate that is also a part of the KKK is Senator Robert Byrd, a democrat.)
Remember, the first and only man to strike another on the floor of the Senate was a democrat. And it was over slavery and the fact that the democrat didn't want to give it up, even though the overwhelming public opinion both north and south of the Mason-Dixie line was against the democrats. The democrats started the civil war by firing on federal soldiers. The democrats enforced segregation. It wasn't until the Republicans were able to regain some power in the senate and house that segregation was ended.
So if you are against corporate welfare and you think that corrupt corporate leaders should get jailtime, vote Bush and Republican.
Mark this flamebait. I know you guys hate hearing the truth. It drives the democrats nuts because they can't refute it, so instead they try to shut us up and prevent us from exercising our right to free speech.
It's really more than that, because you have to remember that each photon is neither fully in one state or the other. It is a combination of the two. This is "quantum superposition", or the concept that a particle is really a manifestation of discrete possibilities.
I think a good example of what is really happening is to imagine a pair of dice guaranteed by nature always to roll a 7. If you see a "3" on one die, then there absolutely must be a "4" on the other. Anything else would be a violation of several fundamental laws. Now imagine taking the two dice and seperating them by a large distance, and then rolling one of the dice. Even though there is a large distance, and even though the speed of light is the limit at which information may be sent, the other die will show the other number pair when measured. (Debate about whether one measurement happens before another is meaningless due to special relativity. In other words, one measurement cannot cause another to be so.) So if you roll a 3, the other die will roll (or has rolled) a 4. If you happen to roll a 1, then the other die will roll (has rolled) a 6. Spooky, huh? Welcome to the crazy world of quantum mechanics! Just when you thought you understood it all, nature throws a curveball.
Now your first instinct is that somehow those dice decided on something befor they were seperated. This is not how quantum mechanics works. The two particles can't "decide" on anything until measurement. Every observation and every calculation tells you that the particles did not decide on a specific state beforehand. I could show you why this is so, but it's pretty complicated and involves higher level mathematics than the average slashdot reader can understand. If you're really interested, I suggest reading a QM textbook. They keep this topic in one of the last chapters, so you have a lot of studying ahead of you.
Finally, your next reaction is going to be, "Wow, we can communicate at speeds faster than the speed of light!" Unfortunately, the way this works you can't "force" the particle to a particular state. If the particle comes in with a preference for one state or the other, then the complement will be true for the other particle. (By preference, I mean the chance of one state is 90%, and the other is 10%, or 99.99% and 0.01%, not something pre-decided. See the above paragraph.) And thanks to special relativity, it is fruitless to try and decide whether one measurement occured before or after another, so a causality link cannot be established.
Slashdot Mirror
Bush didn't write these documents. Someone else was claimed to write them. How can Bush deny that someone else did or did not do something? He can only talk about what he has done.
The White House only released the documents that they had. Those documents were obtained from CBS.
CBS's reputation is at stake. They must obtain and release the originals. That is the only way to satisfy the critics. As it stands now, it is blatantly obvious that CBS hasn't been checking their sources and as such, they can't be trusted to break stories.
http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000838.php
Dr. Phil Bouffard (search on Google for who he is) says that the documents are at least 90% probability of being fake. He claims that the font used is Times New Roman, which is only available on computers. He claims that the number "4" proves this, as well as the "th" being very rare.
Folks, unless CBS produces the originals, Dr. Bouffard can't do any more investigation, and his analysis will remain.
Also, note that the documents that the White House produced were the same documents that CBS gave them. Hence, the White House makes no assertion of the document's legitimacy.
Since Bush made his military records available, and Kerry has not, you can search his documents yourself and determine whether he deserved to be discharged honorably or not.
A reporter called Byron York has written a tremendously accurate article on Bush's service. I suggest you read it.
http://www.thehill.com/york/090904.aspx
Notice this particular quote:
"In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots," [retired Col. William] Campenni says. "The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In '72 or '73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem."
Now go read the other side of the story, the side that actually reads the whole story, and make a decision.
Remember, President Bush has asked all the 527s to stop the mudslinging, including the SBVFT. He has also said that he thinks Kerry has served honorable, to which Republican audiences have cheered audibly. The Republicans officially do *NOT* question John Kerry's service.
Go read the original constitution. Originally, people didn't vote for the president. In fact, the people didn't have a say on how the president was chosen.
Article II, section 2, clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The legislature of a state chose the electors, not the people! The popular vote is just as important as the world-wide popular vote. It is irrelevant. All the states have delegated that responsibility to various systems. I believe Rhode Island and Maine appoint electors according to the proportion of the vote.
The electors assembled in their own states and chose two people to be president, one of which must not be from their state. (That's why Cheney moved to Wyoming and claimed residency there - he could not be voted as the second because he was a Texas resident.) They had to send the number of votes for each person, signed and sealed, to the federal government. Whereupon the president of the senate opens the envelopes and reads the votes. The one with the majority is the president. The second place is vice-president, and president of the senate. If there is a tie and both have majority, then the house decides who is president and who is vice-president. If no one gets a majority, then the house chooses one from the top five candidates. In the case the house is tied, the senate breaks the tie.
That's how the president was chosen at first. In fact, in the first election, nobody ran for president. However, George Washington won overwhelmingly. It was said that each of the electorates actually debated and took seriously their duty to choose a president. How I wish we elected representatives to choose the most important office in the land! And how I wish those people would debate and choose outside of the visibility of the people and legislatures the president!
Eventually, we got rid of the "second place is vice-president" rule by amendment because it always meant that the president of the senate was in opposition to the president, and the government was constantly gridlocked due to that.
When the Florida debacle occured, the Florida state legislature could've stepped in and changed the law permitting them to appoint electors without regard to the people's voice. That was their right under the constitution. Then they could've appointed their own electoral college and then sent them off to vote whichever way they pleased. However, because so few Americans have even read the simple document that our nation is built on, they refused to do so for fear of open rebellion. Instead, they allowed the courts to settle the matter.
Now, go read that document! You have to understand what is in it and what is not, and it is an easy read for techies like us. If we forget what checks and balances are in there, and why they are there, we are doomed to end up like France, Germany, Russia, or China one day.
I think the death toll is just another campaign ploy by the democrats. I'd be careful mentioning it, because you really are using their caskets as a device.
Why don't we count the number of Iraqi patriots who have died fighting insurgents and terrorists? They died defending their own country, trying to secure it to a point where they might actually get a free election. The insurgents and the terrorists are doing everything in their power to prevent this.
Shall we count the innocent victims of terrorism and insurgencies in Iraq as well? We know for a fact that the insurgents and terrorists have killed far more Iraqi civilians than the Americans did. They are doing more damage to their own country than an entire army did in taking it over.
The real numbers to be concerned about are the 200+ school children and faculties murdered brutally by Al Quaeda operatives in Russia. Did you read Putin's speech? He has joined Bush in the pre-emptive doctrine. No longer is he going to wait to respond to terrorism. He is going to hunt and destroy every known terrorist organization within his reach.
You should also count the passengers and victims of the terrorist's insane attack on September 11, 2001. Count the ones who were working to support their families in the twin towers, count the firefighters and police men who knowingly went into a building that was collapsing, that knowingly climbed higher and higher while everyone else was rushing to get out. Count the fathers and mothers, and count the children that had no family to return to that evening. And count the member of the military in the Pentagon that were taken that day as well.
But don't forget the other victims of terror, both American and abroad, who have been murdered in the name of Jihad. The USS Cole, the marine barracks, the embassy bombings, the first trade tower attack, the bombings in Southeast Asia, the Phillipines, etc.
I say every one of those 1,000 soldiers who volunteered to give their lives are heroes. It's because of them that we are fighting terrorists in Baghdad and not Manhattan. It's because of them that I can sit here and even talk about them without worrying about someone walking into my office with a bomb strapped to his belt. Would I have supported Bush if I knew in 1 1/2 years later 1,000 of this country's bravest and most patriotic would give their lives to execute the plan? Hell yes.
Iraq isn't over until we have peaceful elections and stability. It isn't over until we have completed the transition from a people enslaved to a despot to a people free from terror. It isn't over until the seeds of democracy are planted in the Middle East. Iraq is our one hope to solve the terrorist problem and to bring peace and prosperity to that area of the world. If we succeed there, we can succeed in Iran, Syria, Libya, and surrounding areas. Democracy will spread like wildfire in that region, like it did in the civilized world 200 years ago.
Where will the terrorists turn for new recruits when all the people in the Middle East have a voice? Why will the blow themselves up when they can run for office or vote their conscience? Why would they hate America when America is one of their biggest and most profitable trading partners?
His name is Fidel Castro. He is one of the last communist dictator holdouts. He is known for butchering his own people for political reasons. He single handedly turned Cuba from an island paradise to hell on earth.
Down in Cuba, they really do have problems with freedom. You are not allowed to say anything bad about the president. If you do, your patriotism is questioned, along with your family and friends. And when the questioning is done, you are executed. I think Fidel prefers a firing squad, but maybe good old-fashioned hangings are more popular nowadays.
When there is a political rally, you have to show up. Then the state-run media pronounces, "This must be something the people really care about, because millions marched in the street!"
They don't search you when you board a plane, because there are no planes to board and even if there were, they wouldn't let you board them. You area prisoner of the state. Up here in the US, we tell you, "If you like Cuba so much, why don't you go down there and live?" We tell you this because you are free to do so. But Cubans can't say, "If you like the US so much, why don't you go up there and live?" No, they say, "You like the US so much, maybe you'll like the firing squad more."
Down in Cuba, there are no mega-corporations. There aren't any high-paying white collar jobs either. You are a slave to the state. Young boys work in the fields since the time that they are 8. We call that child abuse, but down in Cuba, it's business as usual.
Medical care is pathetic. But it's state-run, so everyone has it. What's the last drug or medical procedure that Cuba has developed? Whereas up here we develop new drugs and procedures every day of the week.
People are so poor and so abused down there that they would rather risk their lives crossing the Gulf of Mexico to reach Florida, even at the risk of getting turned away by the US Coast Guard. And if they get caught by Fidel's brownshirts, they are summarily executed, along with their family.
And this is the kind of country that interrupts its regular state-run broadcast schedule to run Fahrenheit 911.
The last time we had a viable third party we elected Abraham Lincoln. The third party was the Republican Party. The result was Civil War.
I really wish we had a no-party system as that would be the best. We should judge each candidate individually, not based on their party. They should go to Washington DC representing us, not their party.
If you haven't taken the time to register yet, if you don't know what district and precinct you are in, and if you have no idea who is running for your local school board, city council, state legislature, and the federal seats, then please do us all a favor and stay home.
If you don't know who Adam Smith is and why he is a significant figure in American history, what makes the Declaration of Independence so ground-shakingly important, what the first three words of the Constitution are, and why the two parties are called "Democrat" and "Republican", please stay home and don't vote.
Democracy isn't the right kind of government for you. You aren't educating yourself, you aren't taking up the responsibility of self government, and you are more than willing to give your power away. So rather than give it to some politicians who would love to have you vote for them despite your incredible ignorance, why don't you just let those voters who do know what they are voting for make the important decisions for you?
To all my fellow Americans, I would ask that if you want to participate in the process, participate fully and extensively. Don't just stop at voting. Go out and meet the candidates. Get to know the issues they are facing. Ask you school board, "What are the issues you are facing?" Ask your state legislators, "What can I do to help make our state better?" Go knock on doors and meet other people and tell them what you feel is important and listen to what they feel is important. That way, when you go out and vote, you aren't just guessing, you are making decisions that will have long-term effects.
The world of politics is mind-bogglingly big, and everyone is invited to participate. But if you would rather stay out of the party, then stay out all the way.
Not necessarily. Consider the performance of finding a document you wrote two years ago. How long does it take you to walk through the directory hierarchy browsing file names? How fast is the file search tool? Wouldn't it be faster if you could say "Show me the documents I wrote two years ago" and the refine the search or browse the results?
Storing data in a relational database is natural because it is more like the way we store data in our minds than the hierchical structures of traditional file systems.
Also, we allow a complete abstraction of the underlying database in relational systems. The database can store the data however it sees fit, and can arrange the data on disk without the users noticing a change.
I look forward to experimenting with a relational filesystem. I think it would be a wonderful thing to try out and see if it actually has the advantages I outlined above. I'd also like to see the actual disadvantages.
How many Americans still believe between the fictional connection between Saddam and 9/11?
- 3401r.htm:
c les/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp, which was cited by Dick Cheney himself as the best article to detail the link between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
We all agree that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11?
Assuming that we are, all I have to prove is a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and then a connection between Saddam and 9/11 based on those two facts.
From http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921
In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.
The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.
The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
Not enough for you? Read http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Arti
Note also that the 9/11 commission found that there was no evidence to suggest that Iraq and Al Quaeda cooperated in the 9/11 event. However, there was evidence of Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperating.
Take the direct words of CIA Director George Tenet (a Clinton appointee) that "we have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade" and "credible information indicates that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression."
Take also the words of John Kerry, who said Hussein "supported and harbored terrorist groups." Some of those terrorists are obviously members of Al Qaeda. Zarqawi is perhaps the best example of an Al Qaeda senior operative operating in Iraq before, and now after, the war.
Also remember the Prague meeting, where Sept. 11 mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official before the attacks, or so it was claimed. While the administration doesn't claim to have evidence of these claims, the Czech government won't abandon their position on this issue.
Now, I've proven with evidence that there is a connection between Iraq and Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda. We take it as an agreed fact that Al Qaeda is directly responsible for 9/11. Now the question remains: Can we connect these two facts to attribute some blame of 9/11 to Saddam Hussein?
The one side says that yes, we can. The reasoning is that since Saddam supported Al Qaeda, they share the blame for what Al Qaeda has done. The other side says that no we can't because even thought Saddam supported Al Qaeda, they did so without knowing of 9/11.
I'll leave that one up to people's judgment. However, you cannot say that it absolutely is not true that Saddam and 9/11 is not linked. Nor can I say that it absolutely is true that they are linked. I can only say that if you believe that by supporting Al Qaeda, Saddam shares some of the blame of the things Al Qaeda has done, then Saddam shares some of the responsibility of 9/11.
X.Org is proof of Open Source advantages. XFree86 was a failing project, floundering under incompetent leadership. Under normal, closed source projects, this would spell doom for the software.
However, because it is open source, the project could be forked under new, competent leadership. And also, because of its licensing terms, people could switch to that fork without any negative repercussions.
Look at the progress X.Org has made in such a short period of time! How can anyone say that Open Source software is not superior?
Now that spammers are publishing SPF, it is going to be so much easier to track them down. At the very least, we will be able to deny accepting their email from the start.
Now that more and more email is being authenticated, we can start to say, "Ah, this domain claims responsibility for this email." Now that we can attach a responsible party to each email, we can hold them accountable. At the very least, their reputation as a spammer will be well-known. At the very best, their illegal spams will be detected by law enforcement, and the owner of the domain name will be caught. Oh, they don't have accurate records? Well then the registrar is going to be held accountable. Oh, did they use a stolen credit card to buy the domain? Oh, they bought hundreds or even thousands of domains? When they get caught, which they will, they will never see the outside world again.
This article is pure FUD, and is all wrong. When spammers publish SPF, we have won.
You are probably too blind to see your own shortsightedness. First off, you do realize that President George W. Bush singlehandedly rendered the Democrat party a bunch of asses? At every point in his career where democrats moved in to destroy his reputation, he turned it around and it ended up burning the democrats. Also, you do realize that President George W. Bush has conquered not just two countries, but several more, all with diplomacy? Pakistan and Libya are now working with us instead of against us. That wasn't true when Bush took office.
You have built up this image of an idiot who can barely wipe his own spittle, being controlled by powerful and more experienced people around him, and you don't see that your image is wrong. I think this is one of the most brilliant things he has done. He has allowed himself to appear a fool just so he can take all those who are stupid enough to believe that by surprise.
Remember in 2000, when Bush went in to meet Gore for the debates? Bush absolutely trashed Gore, and Gore came out looking like an absolute crazy idiot. Except when they were getting ready for the first debate, everyone was wondering if Bush would even survive the vast intellect and debate experience of Gore. Now we know that Bush is far more skilled with debate and diplomacy and politics than even I can understand.
So keep on misunderstimating the president, it's you who have been played the fool this entire time.
Yep, we have a right to kill the enemy in times of war. Isn't that the whole point of war - to destroy the enemy using whatever means necessary? The fact that we moved the battlefield from our homeland to their doorstep mneans that they were unable to defend themselves and that they should've done the math before they started blowing us up. I feel no pity for stupid people that declare war on the US without the resources to prosecute that war.
We didn't declare war on these people first. They declared war on us a long time ago, and we practically ignored them. Now that they have organized themselves to a point where they can inflict real harm on us, and are willing to do so, we have to stop them before they do.
I've noticed that dissent is becoming less and less tolerated.
Sure seems tame compared to the Ruby Ridge and Waco Complex / Davidian Cult incidences. At least they didn't blow the bike up and charge in there with the SWAT team.
You should also note that President Bush has the most diverse cabinet in terms of any way you look at it. Even in political ideology, there are members of the cabinet that don't agree with the president on any issue. It sure seems if there is something that is disappearing nowadays, it sure isn't tolerance and diversity. Perhaps it's just common sense and accurate information?
In any case how about: the right to a trial (Jose Padilla), the right to a lawyer (Shoe-bomber dude), the right to call witnesses (the so-called 20th hijacker), the right to hear evidence presented by the prosecution (the Gitmo detainees), the right to not have the government know what you read (at least not without getting a warrant; Patriot Act), freedom of assembly and to protest (e.g. in Central Park).
Enemy combatants don't have rights. Jose Padilla and the Shoe Bomber are classified as enemy combatants because they are associated with an entity we declared war on. Because they did not identify themselves with a uniform, they have no rights, not even under the Geneva Convention, with which we don't have to obey anyway because the Taliban and Al Qaeda aren't signatories. (Neither is Iraq, so we don't have to obey the GC there either.) In effect, they are like captured spies, and captured spies have no rights, not even under the GC. We can put them in a block of cement and sink them in the Gulf of Mexico, and there would be no legal violations, even without a trial.
The Gitmo detainees are all enemy combatants and prisoners of war. They have no rights, not even under the GC. (See above).
The Patriot Act doesn't override the need for warrants. Police and FBI still have to obtain them. The issuing of a warrant just isn't made public, so that our enemies can't watch government channels and determine when they have been discovered. We do the same in the war on drugs and the war on organized crime.
The City of New York owns Central Park, and so they get to determine who can do what there. As far as I can tell, the right to organize protests wasn't one of the rights that New York gave people in Central Park. The city is allowed to prevent people from "peacebly" assembling, where such assembly isn't peaceful and interferes with other's rights.
Sometimes the right thing to do is to break the law.
When you do decide it is right to break the law, you must accept the consequences that go with it. For instance, our Founding Fathers gave up their honor, fortune, lives, and families so that they could perhaps overthrow a tyrannical government.
If you do decide to face off with the federal, state, or local governments, you have better be prepared for the consequences of your actions. I won't feel any sympathy for you if you take them on and then complain because you lost your family, job, and reputation in doing so. You should've thought about the consequences of your actions before you did them.
I personally believe that the governments are still in the hands of the people, and the most efficacious way of changing said government is through the political process. There is no reason to jeopardize your life and liberty in an act of futility.
Your comparison between the brownshirts and Bush selling tickets to events is absurd. In fact, it is a logical fallacy - that of an ad hominem attack.
If I want to set the rules for my speaking engagement, it is my God-given right to do so. I can refuse to speak. The audience can refuse to attend. The host can refuse to allow me to speak or the audience to attend, since he owns or manages the building.
If I want to hold a meeting and only allow certain people to attend, then it is my God-given and Supreme Court-upheld right to do so. It's even written into the constitution as the right to peacebly assemble. That's why gays aren't allowed to be scoutmasters in the BSA. That's also why you can't just barge into a board meeting at your local friendly corporation.
I don't see how refusing to allow those who disagree with you and actually want to harm you (not necessarily physically) to attend your meetings where you want to rally your cause can be compared to the secret police of the German National Socialist Party (aka Nazi party). I would hardly expect John Kerry to allow me to attend his political rallies.
Copy & Paste is not part of X. I wouldn't want it to be. Why should X know how to handle an HTML document and whether to paste just the text or the text and the images or the html code? Why should X be able to recognize URLs and email addresses that you copy, and suggest that you store them in your bookmarks or address book? Would you want copy and paste only in X applications? Why not from the text console as well?
Copy & Paste is not something X should even know about. Instead, it will be some other system service or a service initiated just for the user who is logged in.
To get Copy & Paste to work all we have to do is agree to a standard IPC method and a standard interface. Once we decide on that, it's a matter of getting all the apps up to the standard. So far, only Gnome and KDE have agreed to anything, and I think they both want a more general solution.
Yes, they probably think they have some control in the email arena. Unfortunately, they don't. All you have to do is look at the competing SPF-classic (spf.pobox.com) and you'll see that even Sender ID - a compromise between SPF and Caller ID - is failing.
People are wondering if Microsoft has any measurable quantity of email servers facing the real internet. Best practice is to put sendmail (or postfix or qmail or whatnot) between your exchange servers and the internet. Even now, people are proposing standards and practices that totally ignore how the exchange server functions, and the community for the most part doesn't seem to mind.
I think this is the "age of irrelevance" for Microsoft. The "real" internet doesn't even come into contact with Microsoft anymore. Companies don't have internet-facing Microsoft servers anywhere that I can tell. Those who do obviously aren't going to have much uptime. (Would you run a Microsoft server without a firewall between it and the internet?)
Just to get everyone up to speed:
- SPF (http://spf.pobox.com) is the current email authentication protocol that is dominating the world.
- Microsoft proposed Caller ID which was never accepted by the community.
- Microsoft and SPF advocate Meng Weng Wong brokered a deal and formed Sender ID. Basically, SPF is intact, but some features of Caller ID are preserved as an optional extension.
The part of Caller ID that remains is the PRA or "Purported Responsible Authority". The PRA is deteremined by a complicated algorithm that I personally don't believe would work. The algorithm is intentionally vague in some areas, and the results are ultimately subjective. The intention of the PRA algorithm is to determine who wrote the email based on the email headers. As everyone knows, the email headers are spoofable. But the idea goes, if you can track down the PRA, then you can authenticate this email based on that, rather than just the last hop like SPF does.
The problem from day one has been the patent issue. Microsoft is in the process of patenting the PRA algorithm. This isn't a problem. The problem is that Microsoft refuses to put the patent in the public domain or license the patent such that anyone can use it except those who use patents against Microsoft. Both of those strategies are perfectly reasonable, and are pretty much what IBM does for most of its patents.
Microsoft originally wanted to get a copy of the software and a signature before they would grant a license. Well, that doesn't work for F/OSS. The MARID working group who is investigating various solutions to the email authentication protocol for the IETF has been petitioning Microsoft to revise or clarify their licensing procedure. Well, they finally have, and in so doing they have not made it F/OSS compatible.
Microsoft thinks they can bully us around, but they don't realize they are the small kid on the email block. Their Caller ID failed. Now Sender ID is going to fail because Microsoft refuses to participate.
But that's okay. The PRA algorithm isn't anything we'll need to solve the email authentication problem.
Sounds like you should cast your vote for Bush. He has repeatedly refused to bailout the airline and rail industries. The Republicans aren't into that corporate corruption and corporate welfare thing. Why do you think Enron, Anderson, and others are getting prosecuted now and not during the Clinton years, when they were at their heyday?
The Democrats talk a lot about how the Republicans are the party of the rich and how they are 100% behind the corporations. I have news for you. The richest senators are Democrats, not Republicans. Heck, John Kerry and co is worth more than ten times what Bush and co is worth! And the Republicans are all for letting wasteful, poorly managed companies take a dive to leave room for new, young, vibrant companies. The Democrats will do anything to keep their buddies' companies alive.
Where do the Republican's principle donations and loyalties lie? With homeowners and small business people. Why do you think that they are pursuing cutting the income tax for the highest wage earners? Because the highest wage
- earners
are those who are- becoming
rich, not who are already rich. These are the small business people who finally get their break and are expanding their business to meet the demand. And the Republicans are pursuing to cut the death tax because it hurts the small business owners who don't have a team of fifty lawyers and accountants on hand to setup trust funds to make sure their cash gets into their childrens hands.Democrats talk up a storm - but what have they done for the little guy? Look at their real record, and you'll see they're all about keeping the money in the hands of the rich, preventing others from getting rich, and keeping the poor man on the dole. This runs right along with their historic racist and tyrannical attitudes, which still persist with current members of the Senate. (The only member of the senate that is also a part of the KKK is Senator Robert Byrd, a democrat.)
Remember, the first and only man to strike another on the floor of the Senate was a democrat. And it was over slavery and the fact that the democrat didn't want to give it up, even though the overwhelming public opinion both north and south of the Mason-Dixie line was against the democrats. The democrats started the civil war by firing on federal soldiers. The democrats enforced segregation. It wasn't until the Republicans were able to regain some power in the senate and house that segregation was ended.
So if you are against corporate welfare and you think that corrupt corporate leaders should get jailtime, vote Bush and Republican.
Mark this flamebait. I know you guys hate hearing the truth. It drives the democrats nuts because they can't refute it, so instead they try to shut us up and prevent us from exercising our right to free speech.
It's really more than that, because you have to remember that each photon is neither fully in one state or the other. It is a combination of the two. This is "quantum superposition", or the concept that a particle is really a manifestation of discrete possibilities.
I think a good example of what is really happening is to imagine a pair of dice guaranteed by nature always to roll a 7. If you see a "3" on one die, then there absolutely must be a "4" on the other. Anything else would be a violation of several fundamental laws. Now imagine taking the two dice and seperating them by a large distance, and then rolling one of the dice. Even though there is a large distance, and even though the speed of light is the limit at which information may be sent, the other die will show the other number pair when measured. (Debate about whether one measurement happens before another is meaningless due to special relativity. In other words, one measurement cannot cause another to be so.) So if you roll a 3, the other die will roll (or has rolled) a 4. If you happen to roll a 1, then the other die will roll (has rolled) a 6. Spooky, huh? Welcome to the crazy world of quantum mechanics! Just when you thought you understood it all, nature throws a curveball.
Now your first instinct is that somehow those dice decided on something befor they were seperated. This is not how quantum mechanics works. The two particles can't "decide" on anything until measurement. Every observation and every calculation tells you that the particles did not decide on a specific state beforehand. I could show you why this is so, but it's pretty complicated and involves higher level mathematics than the average slashdot reader can understand. If you're really interested, I suggest reading a QM textbook. They keep this topic in one of the last chapters, so you have a lot of studying ahead of you.
Finally, your next reaction is going to be, "Wow, we can communicate at speeds faster than the speed of light!" Unfortunately, the way this works you can't "force" the particle to a particular state. If the particle comes in with a preference for one state or the other, then the complement will be true for the other particle. (By preference, I mean the chance of one state is 90%, and the other is 10%, or 99.99% and 0.01%, not something pre-decided. See the above paragraph.) And thanks to special relativity, it is fruitless to try and decide whether one measurement occured before or after another, so a causality link cannot be established.