"But stay away from the orange shades as they may make you appear less professional."
I have to agree with parent poster. Orange does tend to detract from the professional feel. You should also avoid Green, unless it's Hunter Green. Generally speaking, a good charcoal gray or dark blue will convey a sense of conservative business values. If you're wanting to strike out boldly, then "Brick Red" is the way to go.
Also, keep the crayons sharp--nobody likes a dull business plan.
Having read the threads, I am shocked. So many people decried this as a wanton violation of privacy. This is tantamount to stating that the government is conducting an illegal search. In the U.S., a Search is no illegal if what you are doing is in plain view.
The very nature of web sites and blogs is that they are meant to be viewed. Otherwise, what's the point? Emails are (by default, anyway) sent in the clear so that anybody can sniff it. So, there is no invasion of privacy, AFAIK. Don't complain about loss of privacy when you're not being private.
Somebody suggested that this activity would push the terrorists to go old-tech. I disagree, in part because there are ways to encrypt messages and hide data. It will make things more difficult for them. In war, one of the things this most critical is communication--kill the ability to effectively communicate, hobble the combatant. Altneratively, if you can read their mail and they don't know it, then you can stop them in their tracks. We did this in the Battle of Midway when we had Japanese Naval codes broken and discovered an impending attack.
I just have a hard time buying the privacy argument when you're doing things across somebody else's network in plain view. People lament how this is a loss of freedom. Freedom is not an absolute--you're not free to do what you want.
Besides, what if the terrorist attack thwarted is the one directed at you and yourn? If the government fails to detect an attack and people die, wouldn't you complain about the ineffectiveness of the government and how they should have known? Wait, people did when 9-11 happened in claiming the Administration should have seen the attack coming. So, I rest my case.
This is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for the government.
"This (IMHO) is a downfall of capitalism - businesses no longer compete by making a better product, they compete by leveraging laws and other details against any existing and would-be competitors. If you can manipulate the rules, you do not have to play as hard."
No, this is an example of monopolism run amok--not capitalism. The whole premise behind patents (and copyright) is that the government grants a limited-term monopoly to encourage development of an idea. After all, once an idea is out there, it is easy to exploit--so the monopoly encourages a fellow to make good on his idea. That is, patents are an artificial creation to protect an idea from capitalism.
It is contrary to the interests of good economy to allow monopolies (or oligopolies, IMO). It's been a few years since I took my economics class, but monopolies are not optimized the way true capitalism would be--the price is artificially inflated--or something like that.
I would say no to the paycut for more interesting work. But, then again, there are personal preferences. I figure that eventually the younger pups will push me out of the market, so the better bet is to gravitate towards management, where I will be more effective after my ability to keep current with the minutea of tech is overshadowed by the pups. It happens.
A book on management, I can't remember the title, has a couple of rules about job changing. First, always go for the job that pays more. Second, avoid jobs that are strictly staff--always try to interface with the client. That's because working with the client helps the company earn, which helps the bottom line and increases your visibility to the higher-ups. The caveat to rule two is if it pays more money and is take the staff job, but get out of it in 12-18 months.
I would also avoid job-hopping, stay within one company as long as you can while getting a varied experience.
You just cost me about 30 minutes of productivity looking at that link. I could have been doing work. My wife is a frugal freak, so I sent this on to her--she's minor league compared to some of these guys.
We went to Vegas for our honeymoon. The first night we stayed in a local hotel, but problems led them to give us the stay for free--they also allowed 14-days free parking in their parking lot (near a major metropolitan airport). We flew for less than $300 round trip for both.
Our rental car (10 days) cost us only $5. Because the hotel we were going to stay at in Vegas was booked, they sent us across the highway to their sister hotel--for free. Because I was looking haggard, the manager gave me $20 for cab fare--which was the only money we gambled while there. We proceeded to go on a car tour of the Southwest (including sky diving).:-)
So, seeing the thread just made me salivate--and will send my wife into a surfing spree!
Maturity is really a process, not a destination. I know some pretty rash, immature seniors (i.e. 60+) and some very level-headed tweens (i.e., 20-30). After they figure out when maturity sets in, I believe we should find out how green is green and how far is up. Then we'll be getting somewhere.
"'It now looks as though the Milky Way is the biggest galaxy in the local Universe, bigger even than Andromeda. It was thought until just a few months ago that it was the other way around.'"
Yeah, but it's like I was telling the Old Lady just the other night. It's really not so much the size, as how its used. I think Andromeda gets a whole lot more use out of itself than we do with the Milky Way. And, I find a hard time calling our galazy the Milky Way. I mean, Milky Ways have no nuts in them--and our galaxy has more nuts than I care to count. Maybe we should rename it "Snickers?"
"Once your engine stops, you will no longer have a power steering pump, which means that you won't be able to whip around a corner with one finger on the wheel, but you will still be able to steer and bring the car to a safe stop. The same goes for brakes, you won't have power assist so you will have to use some muscle and push that brake peddle down, but you will still be able to stop/slow the vehicle."
I beg to differ in one regard. You are seriously underestimating the effects of power assist. By way of example, I would suggest you go out to a large, empty parking lot, accelerate to about 35MPH or so, and turn off the car. Now, you will retain some power assist, but only until the brakes have been used. Simulate some turns. You will find that the brakes become essentially unresponsive before you stop, although you will retain some turning.
About twenty years ago, when I was a teenager, I would screw around with my car by finding out what would happen if, for example, the engine died. I got pretty good after a while. There was a hill about a mile from my house that I could speed up on and then turn off the car (shifting into neutral)--and coast all the way to the garage. Of course, that meant I had to climb two hills, and conduct several turns. I had no brakes, but by the time I got to the garage I was only going about 5MPH, so I could get it to stop.
Every once in a while I remind myself of the essential helplessness we have in modern US cars by doing what I suggest to you above. When I had a '69 VW Beetle, it was no worries--just an overpowered go-cart. Now nowdays.
". . . the great mob mentality that is the modern stock market."
And this differs from the 'ancient' stock market in what way? The key behind the market is emotion--prices rise and fall based on the collective emotion of the merket. Aways has been, from the South Seas bubble of the 17thC through the Dotcom bubble of the 21stC. There's no getting around that.
IMO, the secret to investing is picking a few index funds and playing long-term (i.e. 30-40y). I don't have time or inclination to try to day-trade, which is a fool's errand, IMO. I don't even have the time or inclination to stock trade. Leave that to the "professionals," just like the mundanes should leave tech problems to the "professionals.":-)
"So you are saying that if the military didn't exist none of those things would have been invendted by private enterprise."
"A dubious claim. Hell for all you know even cooler things could have been invented without the shroud of secrecy."
Perhaps a dubious claim. However, when you look at the spikes of development that occur during times of war, the claim seems less so. Look at the development of the airplane in the succession of wars. Of course, we mussn't forget the Cold War, which included huge amounts of technological development for the military (including the Space program, which was entirely within the military until NASA, IIRC).
I've read in several places that virtually everything we do in trauma and emergency medicine--from the ambulance to the ER, was based on lessons learned during Vietnam. Although, that Army Captain who killed his family did a lot to pioneer ER protocol.
I'm not discounting the role of civilian improvement upon technology. But, when there's a war governments will pool their resources and pull out all the stops to ensure they are not beaten technologically.
That said, I think the "privitization" of space is for the better because we've reached a point where the pooling of resources is becoming counter productive. I think we need that cycle: pooling of resources during a crisis to beat a problem followed by decentralization for thinking outside the box.
No matter how you slice it, both parties will admit SS is broken. The fact that the Dems applauded when Bush pointed out that they did nothing to contribute to *any* solution only shows the American heartland that Democrats don't care about the problem. It was actually a pedantic display, IMO. Not to say the Republicans are much better. However, I don't ever remember them heckling a Democrat President.
- He's not dead. He's resting. - Resting? - Yeah. He's tired after a long squall. - Alright. If he's resting we'll just wake him up then. POLLY! Polly Parrot! Wake up! Polly. I've got a nice cuttle fish for you. *bang* *bang* POLLY! - Now he's stunned.
What is not publically known at this time is that the fast-food industry has been aware of the relationship between the virus and the food. They intentionally infect every animal served with the virus to encourage Americans to eat more. It's a conspiracy.
". . . China will not sign up to the Kyoto treaty . .."
China *did* sign the treaty, as another. fellow posted. But, what's more important, because China is a 'developing' country, it is not bound by Kyoto. So, they can pollute to their heart's content, as can any other 'developing' nation. This, to me, shows the hypocracy of Kyoto. The US is already more efficient than China in dealing with its pollution (though it may produce more), but people complain when we don't sign the treaty. Other nations are already starting to complain about the economic detriments of Kyoto.
Also, I don't agree that mankind is responsible for global warming. There's entirely too much evidence supporting that this is just the part of a regular cycle that is on the upswing. I recall an article that showed solar output is a greater influcencer of earth climate than man. I've read articles that say that volcanos produce more CFCs than man does.
That's not a very good headline. I mean, aren't many/.ers who write code self-described hackers? This guy was trading in pirated software. So, he is a "Pirate," not a "Hacker." I'd complain about the editing, but this is/..
"And how does this affect the lawsuits by the BSA, RIAA, and MPAA?"
Um, probably none. IIRC, the types of lawsuits levied by the above named entites are based in copyright law. IANALY, but virtually every copyright action is governed by Federal law and federal courts, not the Court of Appeals for Michigan. Heck, I don't even think the Court of Appeals is the highest court in Michigan, and so may be subject to an overturn. The issue here is based in Michigan state criminal law, not copyright law.
"Minding your own business, causing no trouble, cops come up, and demand your papers. They detail you, question you about your intentions in a particular location and use your identification to establish if you have any wants, warrants, or are a known criminal type who may be in the area to cause trouble.
Unamerican, huh?"
Actually, quite valid and entirely American. IANAL, but if you are in public, the cops can question you, and you can walk away. If they physically detain you, then you have them for false imprisonment and illegeal seizure. If you resist arrest at that point, then false imprisonment flies out the window. If they ask for your identification, you can refuse. If you comply, then you consented--entirely Constitutional. You can also challenge them. Without your consent, a warrant, then they must have a reasonable suspicion that there is a crime afoot and you're the culprit.
If they did all this to you, then you should file suit or stop complaining about it. Except, it happened two years ago, so the statutory limitations period has likely expired in your jurisidiction.
"When a law enforcement officer stops you anywhere, and you are not free to walk away, you are technically under arrest. If you don't believe it, try walking or driving away next time a law enforcement officer asks you to stop. You'll then be charged with any of a variety of charges, which will land you in jail for months to years."
Except, you can walk away. If you try it and they arrest you, then you can sue them for abuse of police power and any other number of torts. They may charge you with various crimes, but the prosecutor has to press them. Then, go for malicious prosecution. Especially when you a have a bouncer and other witnesses.
"If Bush made breathing illegal, you'd still have 45% of the people support it. People are lemmings."
That may be true, and for the sake of argument I will not dispute it. However, since People are Lemmings, then that would mean that the 55 percent who would oppose breathing would also be lemmings. Of course, they would also be dead since they would oppose breathing.
I find it interesting that you chose to describe a minority would would prefer breathing illegally to being dead. I would have thought a much higher number would prefer to remain alive.;-)
There's More . . .
on
The New Boom
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"There's a difference. Bubbles are inflated with hot air and speculation."
Bubbles are also inflated by insiders who exploit the speculation to fleece speculators. In order for this to work really well, however, you need oversight with its hands (intentionally or not) off the tiller. That's what we had in the Dotcom Bubble, methinks. It looked to be good for the economy, so the hand was off the tiller.
But, Democrats will prefer Diebold machines now. I mean, if they can easily go in and alter the results, they have a better chance at stealing more elections and "taking back the majority."
"Your analysis is flawed because of one key assumption: the bill of rights had ten amendments."
There were twelve proposed amendments, sure. But those were all suggested by the anti-federalists. However, the ten that made it were were politically acceptable because they furthered the interests of the Revolution which was to abate government abuses. As you will notice, one of the other two did as well--and it is now an amendment.
The logic is not flawed because the basis is of those that were politically popular.
"But, no matter who you are, you have to admit that the ACLU prevents you from losing anything that might be considered a civil liberty."
So, they champion my rights under the Second Amendment to keep a firearm? I don't think so. And, amongst all the rights, that one is perhaps the most fundamental because it gives us a fighting chance to stop the government of absolutely alienating us from the remainder of our rights. Perhaps that is why dictatorships like to seize privately owned firearms.
Of course, the great debate is whether the Amendment is individual or corporate (i.e. militia). One good arguement I've heard is that the Bill of Rights were added on to explicitly provide for rights that were not clearly stated in the Constitution. All Amendments except the second have been argued by everybody as being individual. So, if nine are individual, then why would the second not be? And, the other nine deal with stemming the excesses of Government against the individual--which is the very issue raised here with the wiretap lawsuit. Wouldn't the private ownership of firearms also serve in that capacity?
My point is that the ACLU has done little to protect an individual's right to firearms. IIRC, they tend to actually work against that right. Hell, it was founded by Socialists with the intent of expanding their cause.
"No where in the article did it say that the number of people headed to a particular floor was a factor. I suspect 10 pushes of the 10th floor button is equal to 1 push of the 10th floor button."
Hmm, I'd rather have a system that uses the lowest common denominator system. That is, push the 10th floor you may have the equivalent of ten pushes of the first floor, or two pushes of the second floor . . .
Slashdot Mirror
"But stay away from the orange shades as they may make you appear less professional."
I have to agree with parent poster. Orange does tend to detract from the professional feel. You should also avoid Green, unless it's Hunter Green. Generally speaking, a good charcoal gray or dark blue will convey a sense of conservative business values. If you're wanting to strike out boldly, then "Brick Red" is the way to go.
Also, keep the crayons sharp--nobody likes a dull business plan.
Having read the threads, I am shocked. So many people decried this as a wanton violation of privacy. This is tantamount to stating that the government is conducting an illegal search. In the U.S., a Search is no illegal if what you are doing is in plain view.
The very nature of web sites and blogs is that they are meant to be viewed. Otherwise, what's the point? Emails are (by default, anyway) sent in the clear so that anybody can sniff it. So, there is no invasion of privacy, AFAIK. Don't complain about loss of privacy when you're not being private.
Somebody suggested that this activity would push the terrorists to go old-tech. I disagree, in part because there are ways to encrypt messages and hide data. It will make things more difficult for them. In war, one of the things this most critical is communication--kill the ability to effectively communicate, hobble the combatant. Altneratively, if you can read their mail and they don't know it, then you can stop them in their tracks. We did this in the Battle of Midway when we had Japanese Naval codes broken and discovered an impending attack.
I just have a hard time buying the privacy argument when you're doing things across somebody else's network in plain view. People lament how this is a loss of freedom. Freedom is not an absolute--you're not free to do what you want.
Besides, what if the terrorist attack thwarted is the one directed at you and yourn? If the government fails to detect an attack and people die, wouldn't you complain about the ineffectiveness of the government and how they should have known? Wait, people did when 9-11 happened in claiming the Administration should have seen the attack coming. So, I rest my case.
This is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for the government.
"We really have nine: sight, sound, taste, touch, smell, heat, pain, balance, and body awareness (or proprioception, my favourite)."
You forgot the sense of style.
"This (IMHO) is a downfall of capitalism - businesses no longer compete by making a better product, they compete by leveraging laws and other details against any existing and would-be competitors. If you can manipulate the rules, you do not have to play as hard."
No, this is an example of monopolism run amok--not capitalism. The whole premise behind patents (and copyright) is that the government grants a limited-term monopoly to encourage development of an idea. After all, once an idea is out there, it is easy to exploit--so the monopoly encourages a fellow to make good on his idea. That is, patents are an artificial creation to protect an idea from capitalism.
It is contrary to the interests of good economy to allow monopolies (or oligopolies, IMO). It's been a few years since I took my economics class, but monopolies are not optimized the way true capitalism would be--the price is artificially inflated--or something like that.
I would say no to the paycut for more interesting work. But, then again, there are personal preferences. I figure that eventually the younger pups will push me out of the market, so the better bet is to gravitate towards management, where I will be more effective after my ability to keep current with the minutea of tech is overshadowed by the pups. It happens.
A book on management, I can't remember the title, has a couple of rules about job changing. First, always go for the job that pays more. Second, avoid jobs that are strictly staff--always try to interface with the client. That's because working with the client helps the company earn, which helps the bottom line and increases your visibility to the higher-ups. The caveat to rule two is if it pays more money and is take the staff job, but get out of it in 12-18 months.
I would also avoid job-hopping, stay within one company as long as you can while getting a varied experience.
Dude(ette?),
:-)
You just cost me about 30 minutes of productivity looking at that link. I could have been doing work. My wife is a frugal freak, so I sent this on to her--she's minor league compared to some of these guys.
We went to Vegas for our honeymoon. The first night we stayed in a local hotel, but problems led them to give us the stay for free--they also allowed 14-days free parking in their parking lot (near a major metropolitan airport). We flew for less than $300 round trip for both.
Our rental car (10 days) cost us only $5. Because the hotel we were going to stay at in Vegas was booked, they sent us across the highway to their sister hotel--for free. Because I was looking haggard, the manager gave me $20 for cab fare--which was the only money we gambled while there. We proceeded to go on a car tour of the Southwest (including sky diving).
So, seeing the thread just made me salivate--and will send my wife into a surfing spree!
Maturity is really a process, not a destination. I know some pretty rash, immature seniors (i.e. 60+) and some very level-headed tweens (i.e., 20-30). After they figure out when maturity sets in, I believe we should find out how green is green and how far is up. Then we'll be getting somewhere.
"'It now looks as though the Milky Way is the biggest galaxy in the local Universe, bigger even than Andromeda. It was thought until just a few months ago that it was the other way around.'"
Yeah, but it's like I was telling the Old Lady just the other night. It's really not so much the size, as how its used. I think Andromeda gets a whole lot more use out of itself than we do with the Milky Way. And, I find a hard time calling our galazy the Milky Way. I mean, Milky Ways have no nuts in them--and our galaxy has more nuts than I care to count. Maybe we should rename it "Snickers?"
"Once your engine stops, you will no longer have a power steering pump, which means that you won't be able to whip around a corner with one finger on the wheel, but you will still be able to steer and bring the car to a safe stop. The same goes for brakes, you won't have power assist so you will have to use some muscle and push that brake peddle down, but you will still be able to stop/slow the vehicle."
I beg to differ in one regard. You are seriously underestimating the effects of power assist. By way of example, I would suggest you go out to a large, empty parking lot, accelerate to about 35MPH or so, and turn off the car. Now, you will retain some power assist, but only until the brakes have been used. Simulate some turns. You will find that the brakes become essentially unresponsive before you stop, although you will retain some turning.
About twenty years ago, when I was a teenager, I would screw around with my car by finding out what would happen if, for example, the engine died. I got pretty good after a while. There was a hill about a mile from my house that I could speed up on and then turn off the car (shifting into neutral)--and coast all the way to the garage. Of course, that meant I had to climb two hills, and conduct several turns. I had no brakes, but by the time I got to the garage I was only going about 5MPH, so I could get it to stop.
Every once in a while I remind myself of the essential helplessness we have in modern US cars by doing what I suggest to you above. When I had a '69 VW Beetle, it was no worries--just an overpowered go-cart. Now nowdays.
". . . the great mob mentality that is the modern stock market."
:-)
And this differs from the 'ancient' stock market in what way? The key behind the market is emotion--prices rise and fall based on the collective emotion of the merket. Aways has been, from the South Seas bubble of the 17thC through the Dotcom bubble of the 21stC. There's no getting around that.
IMO, the secret to investing is picking a few index funds and playing long-term (i.e. 30-40y). I don't have time or inclination to try to day-trade, which is a fool's errand, IMO. I don't even have the time or inclination to stock trade. Leave that to the "professionals," just like the mundanes should leave tech problems to the "professionals."
"So you are saying that if the military didn't exist none of those things would have been invendted by private enterprise."
"A dubious claim. Hell for all you know even cooler things could have been invented without the shroud of secrecy."
Perhaps a dubious claim. However, when you look at the spikes of development that occur during times of war, the claim seems less so. Look at the development of the airplane in the succession of wars. Of course, we mussn't forget the Cold War, which included huge amounts of technological development for the military (including the Space program, which was entirely within the military until NASA, IIRC).
I've read in several places that virtually everything we do in trauma and emergency medicine--from the ambulance to the ER, was based on lessons learned during Vietnam. Although, that Army Captain who killed his family did a lot to pioneer ER protocol.
I'm not discounting the role of civilian improvement upon technology. But, when there's a war governments will pool their resources and pull out all the stops to ensure they are not beaten technologically.
That said, I think the "privitization" of space is for the better because we've reached a point where the pooling of resources is becoming counter productive. I think we need that cycle: pooling of resources during a crisis to beat a problem followed by decentralization for thinking outside the box.
No matter how you slice it, both parties will admit SS is broken. The fact that the Dems applauded when Bush pointed out that they did nothing to contribute to *any* solution only shows the American heartland that Democrats don't care about the problem. It was actually a pedantic display, IMO. Not to say the Republicans are much better. However, I don't ever remember them heckling a Democrat President.
"The tauntaun was already dead."
- He's not dead. He's resting.
- Resting?
- Yeah. He's tired after a long squall.
- Alright. If he's resting we'll just wake him up then. POLLY! Polly Parrot! Wake up! Polly. I've got a nice cuttle fish for you. *bang* *bang* POLLY!
- Now he's stunned.
What is not publically known at this time is that the fast-food industry has been aware of the relationship between the virus and the food. They intentionally infect every animal served with the virus to encourage Americans to eat more. It's a conspiracy.
". . . China will not sign up to the Kyoto treaty . . ."
China *did* sign the treaty, as another. fellow posted. But, what's more important, because China is a 'developing' country, it is not bound by Kyoto. So, they can pollute to their heart's content, as can any other 'developing' nation. This, to me, shows the hypocracy of Kyoto. The US is already more efficient than China in dealing with its pollution (though it may produce more), but people complain when we don't sign the treaty. Other nations are already starting to complain about the economic detriments of Kyoto.
Also, I don't agree that mankind is responsible for global warming. There's entirely too much evidence supporting that this is just the part of a regular cycle that is on the upswing. I recall an article that showed solar output is a greater influcencer of earth climate than man. I've read articles that say that volcanos produce more CFCs than man does.
"Microsoft Tricks Hacker Into Jail"
/.ers who write code self-described hackers? This guy was trading in pirated software. So, he is a "Pirate," not a "Hacker." I'd complain about the editing, but this is /..
That's not a very good headline. I mean, aren't many
Ben
"And how does this affect the lawsuits by the BSA, RIAA, and MPAA?"
Um, probably none. IIRC, the types of lawsuits levied by the above named entites are based in copyright law. IANALY, but virtually every copyright action is governed by Federal law and federal courts, not the Court of Appeals for Michigan. Heck, I don't even think the Court of Appeals is the highest court in Michigan, and so may be subject to an overturn. The issue here is based in Michigan state criminal law, not copyright law.
"Minding your own business, causing no trouble, cops come up, and demand your papers. They detail you, question you about your intentions in a particular location and use your identification to establish if you have any wants, warrants, or are a known criminal type who may be in the area to cause trouble.
Unamerican, huh?"
Actually, quite valid and entirely American. IANAL, but if you are in public, the cops can question you, and you can walk away. If they physically detain you, then you have them for false imprisonment and illegeal seizure. If you resist arrest at that point, then false imprisonment flies out the window. If they ask for your identification, you can refuse. If you comply, then you consented--entirely Constitutional. You can also challenge them. Without your consent, a warrant, then they must have a reasonable suspicion that there is a crime afoot and you're the culprit.
If they did all this to you, then you should file suit or stop complaining about it. Except, it happened two years ago, so the statutory limitations period has likely expired in your jurisidiction.
"When a law enforcement officer stops you anywhere, and you are not free to walk away, you are technically under arrest. If you don't believe it, try walking or driving away next time a law enforcement officer asks you to stop. You'll then be charged with any of a variety of charges, which will land you in jail for months to years."
Except, you can walk away. If you try it and they arrest you, then you can sue them for abuse of police power and any other number of torts. They may charge you with various crimes, but the prosecutor has to press them. Then, go for malicious prosecution. Especially when you a have a bouncer and other witnesses.
"If Bush made breathing illegal, you'd still have 45% of the people support it. People are lemmings."
;-)
That may be true, and for the sake of argument I will not dispute it. However, since People are Lemmings, then that would mean that the 55 percent who would oppose breathing would also be lemmings. Of course, they would also be dead since they would oppose breathing.
I find it interesting that you chose to describe a minority would would prefer breathing illegally to being dead. I would have thought a much higher number would prefer to remain alive.
"There's a difference. Bubbles are inflated with hot air and speculation."
Bubbles are also inflated by insiders who exploit the speculation to fleece speculators. In order for this to work really well, however, you need oversight with its hands (intentionally or not) off the tiller. That's what we had in the Dotcom Bubble, methinks. It looked to be good for the economy, so the hand was off the tiller.
But, Democrats will prefer Diebold machines now. I mean, if they can easily go in and alter the results, they have a better chance at stealing more elections and "taking back the majority."
"Your analysis is flawed because of one key assumption: the bill of rights had ten amendments."
There were twelve proposed amendments, sure. But those were all suggested by the anti-federalists. However, the ten that made it were were politically acceptable because they furthered the interests of the Revolution which was to abate government abuses. As you will notice, one of the other two did as well--and it is now an amendment.
The logic is not flawed because the basis is of those that were politically popular.
"I *really* hope my employer doesn't recognize my Slashdot ID."
Yes, your employer does know your uid. He's pissed, and he's been logging your activity for some time. He suggests a new shell script:
#!/bin/sh
while (1) {
echo "Get to work, Slacker!";
}
"But, no matter who you are, you have to admit that the ACLU prevents you from losing anything that might be considered a civil liberty."
So, they champion my rights under the Second Amendment to keep a firearm? I don't think so. And, amongst all the rights, that one is perhaps the most fundamental because it gives us a fighting chance to stop the government of absolutely alienating us from the remainder of our rights. Perhaps that is why dictatorships like to seize privately owned firearms.
Of course, the great debate is whether the Amendment is individual or corporate (i.e. militia). One good arguement I've heard is that the Bill of Rights were added on to explicitly provide for rights that were not clearly stated in the Constitution. All Amendments except the second have been argued by everybody as being individual. So, if nine are individual, then why would the second not be? And, the other nine deal with stemming the excesses of Government against the individual--which is the very issue raised here with the wiretap lawsuit. Wouldn't the private ownership of firearms also serve in that capacity?
My point is that the ACLU has done little to protect an individual's right to firearms. IIRC, they tend to actually work against that right. Hell, it was founded by Socialists with the intent of expanding their cause.
"No where in the article did it say that the number of people headed to a particular floor was a factor. I suspect 10 pushes of the 10th floor button is equal to 1 push of the 10th floor button."
Hmm, I'd rather have a system that uses the lowest common denominator system. That is, push the 10th floor you may have the equivalent of ten pushes of the first floor, or two pushes of the second floor . . .