If you want to AMMEND the US Constitution then you can make that arguement, and we could have that argument and rehash the debate perhaps where it would be more on topic:). But what I am saying is that you can't pretend that the constitition doesn't say what it clearly says, that's just intellectually dishonest IMHO.
Actually Gore never did manage to win a recount in FL. What Gore wanted, and never was able to get in court, was the admittance of certain ballots and the exclusion of some others, in certain counties. It basically boiled down to the standards that were used to decide whether or not a ballot is legitimate and the letter of the election law in the state of Florida. After a number of recounts, counting the way the courts decided they must, Bush won FL. Thus winning enough Electoral College votes to win the election. Gore did win the national popular vote though.
"A well regulated militia" doesn't mean in your modern parlance what it did to the founding fathers. To them it meant that all able bodied citizens had the right, and potentiall the obligation, to help protect and defend their country against a tyrant, whether foreign or domestic. Remeber that ordinal colonists,were the primary fighters in the revolutionary war. This was to be a safeguard against the emergence of another tyrant.
Secondly, the linguistics of the first clause are not restrictive. They are explanitory. If I said, "since it is necessary for you to drink orange juice to get your intake of vitamin C, no one shall deny anyone the right to have an orange juice", would you argue that I only intend to protect YOUR right to drink OJ, and not those of other individuals? It does provide some rationale as to WHY they wanted "the rights of the people to keep and bear arms" to not be infringed upon.
Furthermore, your interpretation makes absolutely no sense. Why would the government need to grant any army the right to have arms? Plus, using your interpretation, the 2nd ammendment is a grant of power to the government, instead of a guarantor of individual rights, which would make it completely out of character for the Bill of Rights, which is all about limiting what the governemnt is allowed to do. Logically that interpretation makes no sense and is out of line with what the founders intended.
If the anti-gun lobby were honest they would say that the second ammendment is a "dangerous anachronism" that needs to be repealed, instead of trying to pretend that it doesn't say what it clearly says. At least that would be intellectually honest.
Then we could have an honest debate about the need (or lack thereof) of such a right. Unfortunately I don't see this happening.
From a historical perspective, many ideologial groups have attempted to use totalitarianism to achive their goals over the last 100 years or so, and even farther back of course. The first two, facsist dictatorships and communism, have suffered major defeats and are no longer the threat they used to be to free countries. Radical islam however is still a very entrenched and is now becomming a bigger threat to "free" countries.
The idea of "leave them alone" was very popular before WWII, just like the anti-Iraq position is now. It hold a lot of appeal to people who think that somehow the terrorists wouldn't have been "mad" at us if we hadn't provoked them. I agree that the freedom itself isn't necessarily what upsets them, it's that many of us use that freedom to live our lives in ways that they don't agree with. Remember, the stated goals of Al-Qaeda et al. isn't just the removal of US troops from the Gulf, they really do want lifestyles they don't agree with wiped out. They aren't going to be happy to simplly have the US out of the Gulf. To steal a phrase "if you give a mouse some cheese, he's gonna want a cookie."
Sure the US could put more cultural emphasis on learning multiple languages (which is considered highly trendy to do now days for those with the bucks). There are low reasons for an english speaker not to learn another language. I'll label them the "international effect" and the "regional effect". While both the US and UK would suffer from the international effect, the US would suffer much more from the regional effect than the UK.
1. Since English is widely taught (internationally) as a second language, those who learn it as their "first language" can expect others to understand them without learning another language. This reduces the demand for english speakers to learn another language. This would apply to all english speaking countries. I'll call this the "international effect"
2. The "regional effect" is that you have less of a reason to learn other languages if everyone in the region (defined by a variable distance x) speaks your language. Eg. someone from the US travels xkm, and someone from the UK does as well. Which is more likely to end up somewhere where English is not the primary language? Basically, being multilingual is just much more of a requirement for living anywhere in the EU than in the US. It's just more important as a practical skill, because average Europeans are much more likely to use that skill than average USians.
Or they are more likely to USE these tax shelters since the marginal tax RATE is so much higher. Simple logic. I'm not saying that Canadians are less likely to save, but higher rate make tax shelters more attractive.
Not every server runs Oracle or SAP. Those that need to run Oracle are gonna run it on a OS/hardware setup that Oracle supports. Same goes for other Enterprise software. That doesn't mean slackware isn't a great server, just that it isn't supported as an "enterprise" level linux distro. But then again, neither is debian. Only SuSE and RH really get the ISV support.
I think the ideal system would allow the FBI to give information to the CIA et al, but not the other way around. That makes the CIA (or whomever NSA, etc) responsible for national security, as they should be. Law enforcement simply isn't equipped to be fighting wars.
Umm, there were plenty of terrorist attacks under Clinton (USS cole, 1993 WTC bombing, assassination attempt against Bush Sr., heck you could go on and on). I'm not picking on Clinton either, we've been dealing with this for years. It's just that the stakes suddenly because higher after the fall of communism. Clinton pretty much did bubkis for fighting terrorism (pretty much the status quo, as did most before him). This whole business that Clinton was so concerned about Bin Laden is total BS. Every admistration writes reports about the dangers of this or that. I'm sure the the Clinton administration probably did have concerns about terrorism, but I don't think they were given any more than the "usual" level of play and attention; the standard boilerplate warnings if you will.
Even though I prefer the scroll button mice on my desktops, I actually find the one button design easier to use on the laptop. Two button trackpads (or even three) just seem to be very un ergonomical to use. For me it's much easier to use the keyboard modifier than to contort my fingers to do the right click. The work flow is much more smooth. But like I said, I DO find the multibutton mouse more productive on a standard mouse, just not on the trackpads.
Trying to time the bottom (or top) on a stock is a loosing game.
If you are smart you pick realistic levels and buy/sell when it gets there. Thus you end up doing the opposite (buying on the slide and selling while the stock is still going up.
What exactly were the "pervasive abuses" that Red Hat committed? Cause I really don't see any in this story. Of course if you are ignorant of basic finance then it might be easy to turn a routine procedural change in how revenue is booked into "defrauding the investors".
You know, im not slamming you for being ignorant, thats ok. But then you shouldn't spout your opinion like someone that actually knows what they are talking about. It just makes you look foolish.
As others have said, FC is not intended to be a stable distribution. It's a bleeding edge "release early, release often" testing distribution. Sure they have releases (think of them as the development branch of RHEL). the test relesases are like a series of alphas and actual releases are more like beta test phase products. If you want stable you use debian, SuSE enterprise or RHEL. (Or maybe slackware. I have a slackware 8.1 box from 2 years ago still running somewhere (still was being maintained as of last month), I'll probably upgrade after 10.1 comes out. Slackware 10 just came out.)
But is average joe gonna know how to do that. For god sakes slackware is more user friendly to a noob than trying to run any NT based windows version outside of admin/poweruser mode.
This would also minimize the much of the overhead present in the current billing system, or the taxation overhead and bureaucracy of a government run system.
I don't totally disagree. Of course I think that medical insurance ought to be run more like car insurance as opposed to a benefit where people have no incentive to save on costs.
Some sort of deductable plus capped copay arrangement would still give us incentives not to be wasteful, but would also help protect against medical bills bankrupting individuals. Natrually poorer individuals would probably be subsidized (just like they are for education, food, etc). But at least this would give individuals SOME incentive to contain costs and would be means tested instead of a giveaway to everyone, including those who really can afford to pay their own way.
I'm not implying causation, I don't have to (though it might be useful). I'm arguing about grandparent's assertion that the developed world uses "more than their share" of the world's resources, can be viewed in the converse (that poor countries are simply overpopulated for their level of wealth). Neither assertion is more factually correct than the other.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to AMMEND the US Constitution then you can make that arguement, and we could have that argument and rehash the debate perhaps where it would be more on topic :). But what I am saying is that you can't pretend that the constitition doesn't say what it clearly says, that's just intellectually dishonest IMHO.
Actually Gore never did manage to win a recount in FL. What Gore wanted, and never was able to get in court, was the admittance of certain ballots and the exclusion of some others, in certain counties. It basically boiled down to the standards that were used to decide whether or not a ballot is legitimate and the letter of the election law in the state of Florida. After a number of recounts, counting the way the courts decided they must, Bush won FL. Thus winning enough Electoral College votes to win the election. Gore did win the national popular vote though.
Secondly, the linguistics of the first clause are not restrictive. They are explanitory. If I said, "since it is necessary for you to drink orange juice to get your intake of vitamin C, no one shall deny anyone the right to have an orange juice", would you argue that I only intend to protect YOUR right to drink OJ, and not those of other individuals? It does provide some rationale as to WHY they wanted "the rights of the people to keep and bear arms" to not be infringed upon.
Furthermore, your interpretation makes absolutely no sense. Why would the government need to grant any army the right to have arms? Plus, using your interpretation, the 2nd ammendment is a grant of power to the government, instead of a guarantor of individual rights, which would make it completely out of character for the Bill of Rights, which is all about limiting what the governemnt is allowed to do. Logically that interpretation makes no sense and is out of line with what the founders intended.
If the anti-gun lobby were honest they would say that the second ammendment is a "dangerous anachronism" that needs to be repealed, instead of trying to pretend that it doesn't say what it clearly says. At least that would be intellectually honest. Then we could have an honest debate about the need (or lack thereof) of such a right. Unfortunately I don't see this happening.
The idea of "leave them alone" was very popular before WWII, just like the anti-Iraq position is now. It hold a lot of appeal to people who think that somehow the terrorists wouldn't have been "mad" at us if we hadn't provoked them. I agree that the freedom itself isn't necessarily what upsets them, it's that many of us use that freedom to live our lives in ways that they don't agree with. Remember, the stated goals of Al-Qaeda et al. isn't just the removal of US troops from the Gulf, they really do want lifestyles they don't agree with wiped out. They aren't going to be happy to simplly have the US out of the Gulf. To steal a phrase "if you give a mouse some cheese, he's gonna want a cookie."
1. Since English is widely taught (internationally) as a second language, those who learn it as their "first language" can expect others to understand them without learning another language. This reduces the demand for english speakers to learn another language. This would apply to all english speaking countries. I'll call this the "international effect"
2. The "regional effect" is that you have less of a reason to learn other languages if everyone in the region (defined by a variable distance x) speaks your language. Eg. someone from the US travels xkm, and someone from the UK does as well. Which is more likely to end up somewhere where English is not the primary language? Basically, being multilingual is just much more of a requirement for living anywhere in the EU than in the US. It's just more important as a practical skill, because average Europeans are much more likely to use that skill than average USians.
Sigh, ok, I feel better now. :)
Or they are more likely to USE these tax shelters since the marginal tax RATE is so much higher. Simple logic. I'm not saying that Canadians are less likely to save, but higher rate make tax shelters more attractive.
... or cue the movie "Fargo"
Not every server runs Oracle or SAP. Those that need to run Oracle are gonna run it on a OS/hardware setup that Oracle supports. Same goes for other Enterprise software. That doesn't mean slackware isn't a great server, just that it isn't supported as an "enterprise" level linux distro. But then again, neither is debian. Only SuSE and RH really get the ISV support.
Really, I never heard Patrick explain this. Link?? What's the toolkit?
I think this is intentional. Partially due to it's age and partially by choice.
I think the ideal system would allow the FBI to give information to the CIA et al, but not the other way around. That makes the CIA (or whomever NSA, etc) responsible for national security, as they should be. Law enforcement simply isn't equipped to be fighting wars.
Umm, there were plenty of terrorist attacks under Clinton (USS cole, 1993 WTC bombing, assassination attempt against Bush Sr., heck you could go on and on). I'm not picking on Clinton either, we've been dealing with this for years. It's just that the stakes suddenly because higher after the fall of communism. Clinton pretty much did bubkis for fighting terrorism (pretty much the status quo, as did most before him). This whole business that Clinton was so concerned about Bin Laden is total BS. Every admistration writes reports about the dangers of this or that. I'm sure the the Clinton administration probably did have concerns about terrorism, but I don't think they were given any more than the "usual" level of play and attention; the standard boilerplate warnings if you will.
Even though I prefer the scroll button mice on my desktops, I actually find the one button design easier to use on the laptop. Two button trackpads (or even three) just seem to be very un ergonomical to use. For me it's much easier to use the keyboard modifier than to contort my fingers to do the right click. The work flow is much more smooth. But like I said, I DO find the multibutton mouse more productive on a standard mouse, just not on the trackpads.
Trying to time the bottom (or top) on a stock is a loosing game. If you are smart you pick realistic levels and buy/sell when it gets there. Thus you end up doing the opposite (buying on the slide and selling while the stock is still going up.
You know, im not slamming you for being ignorant, thats ok. But then you shouldn't spout your opinion like someone that actually knows what they are talking about. It just makes you look foolish.
Hopefully before 10.4 comes out next year.
RHEL 2.1 or 3.0?
As others have said, FC is not intended to be a stable distribution. It's a bleeding edge "release early, release often" testing distribution. Sure they have releases (think of them as the development branch of RHEL). the test relesases are like a series of alphas and actual releases are more like beta test phase products. If you want stable you use debian, SuSE enterprise or RHEL. (Or maybe slackware. I have a slackware 8.1 box from 2 years ago still running somewhere (still was being maintained as of last month), I'll probably upgrade after 10.1 comes out. Slackware 10 just came out.)
So why do we even need these "zones" then, if the supposedly safer local zone now needs to be as paranoid as the "internet zone"?
But is average joe gonna know how to do that. For god sakes slackware is more user friendly to a noob than trying to run any NT based windows version outside of admin/poweruser mode.
This would also minimize the much of the overhead present in the current billing system, or the taxation overhead and bureaucracy of a government run system.
I don't totally disagree. Of course I think that medical insurance ought to be run more like car insurance as opposed to a benefit where people have no incentive to save on costs. Some sort of deductable plus capped copay arrangement would still give us incentives not to be wasteful, but would also help protect against medical bills bankrupting individuals. Natrually poorer individuals would probably be subsidized (just like they are for education, food, etc). But at least this would give individuals SOME incentive to contain costs and would be means tested instead of a giveaway to everyone, including those who really can afford to pay their own way.
I'm not implying causation, I don't have to (though it might be useful). I'm arguing about grandparent's assertion that the developed world uses "more than their share" of the world's resources, can be viewed in the converse (that poor countries are simply overpopulated for their level of wealth). Neither assertion is more factually correct than the other.
Something I posted earlier that applies to the idea of "entitlements" in general, or "rights" as it is now fashionable to call them. linky