Add another Slashdot victom here. I used to get mod points weekly. After I complained about Michael (and got a post of mine instantly modded from +3 down to -1), I haven't seen them since.
VB.Net is syntactically a lot different from classic VB. If you're going to make the switch, you might as well learn C#. Then you will also be familiar with C/C++ style coding.
I disagree. If you have a VB 6 project with hundreds of thousands of lines of code, and the code is clean enough, then you can use a code converter utility to move almost all of your code to VB.NET. In most business environments, it is much better to be quickly up and running on VB.NET, than it is to rewrite hundreds of thousands of lines in C#.
Why turn a scientific discovery into an Intelligent Design bashing session? Seriously, I don't believe in ID either, but I don't see the need to use a discovery to bash some seemingly unrelated philosophy. What's next, bashing politicians when health discoveries are made, or religious leaders when crime statistics are mentioned, or talk show hosts when global warming studies are released? Does everything have to be this divisive?
The Slashdot story summary is wrong. But what should we expect from Slashdot editors who have political bones to pick? The Slashdot summary says "The report says that under a 2002 presidential order, the National Security Agency has been unconstitutionally and illegally monitoring international communications of hundreds in the U.S."
However, that is not the case. While controversial, the NY Times does not go that far. The most they do is quote some critics who believe it crossed a legal line. Simply having some critics suggest it's unconstitional and illegal hardly makes it so. As the report says:
Some officials familiar with it say they consider warrantless eavesdropping inside the United States to be unlawful and possibly unconstitutional, amounting to an improper search. One government official involved in the operation said he privately complained to a Congressional official about his doubts about the program's legality. But nothing came of his inquiry. "People just looked the other way because they didn't want to know what was going on," he said.
You didn't respond to my points directly. You danced around them. You are stuck in a mindset where your opinions are the one true measuring stick. A great example of this is your comment "Your statement is not a statement.". You called something a statement and then said it was not a statement. You do not argue, you blabberingly define "the right opinion", and use all manner of logical twists to support your one right way. Unfortunately, religious opinions are relative, until they can be proved. Just because you think one opinion is obvious does not mean you are right or you have proved anything.
A majority vote does not define Christianity. If so, Catholics could easily pull most "Christian" doctrines in their favor by their sheer numbers. I personally do not think that Jesus Christ gave the majority of his followers the authority to define his gospel. Also, a majority of Biblical scholars do not accept your rather fundamentalist view of the promise in Revelations. In fact, you are one of the first people I've heard in years who still believe in that argument from Revelations and the baggage it carries.
I also specifically asked for proof of Moses, to follow your claim that "All other books in the Bible were written by verifiable, living people". You did not verify Moses.
Next, Jesus describing the Godhead and his followers as One does not mean he defined marriages in that context as well. And Titus 1:6 (and 1 Timothy 3:2) explains that elders and priests must at least be married, while probably limiting those two priesthood offices to one wife only. Intrestingly, the Greek Orthodox church interprets 1 Timothy 3:2 as saying everyone but bishops can be married. Does that mean Greek Orthodox are not Christian, because they lose the majority rules vote? Overall, I see no New Testament teaching forbidding polygamy. At the same time, I see no New Testament teaching supporting it either. Unfortunately, the New Testament is lacking in doctrinal detail. Often, the apostles will causally mention various doctrines, because the people knew the full details of it. But when search for these full details, we discover they are missing. The detailed definition of marriages is one such thing that is not found.
King David was polygamous. 2 Samuel 12:7-8 shows God himself gave David his wives. 7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
Now, you don't have to accept that plural marriages existed after Old Testament times, but I find it strange when people do scriptural gymnastics to discount David's or Abraham's marriages as not really marriages or not supported by God in the scriptures.
And finally "Non-Mormons do not accept the Mormon interpretation, thus another point for them being considered separate." Non-Catholics do not accept the Catholic interpretation. Non-Jehovahs witnesses do not accept that interpretation. You can see where this leads. Just because one's person opinion is that anothers is not harmonious enough to be Christian, does not mean they become the sole authority on who is a Christian and who isn't.
So the question should again be asked. Who is Christian? It depends on who you ask.:)
1) Mormons accept that many do not view them as Christians. But some do. It's the same for Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox Christians, liberal Christians, Jehovas Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, etc. Who gets to decide who is Christian and who is not?
2) The Bible is a compliation of books. The condition in the last chapter of Revelations applies only to the Book of Revelations. The Book of Revelations wasn't compiled with the rest of the Bible until hundreds of years later when the Catholic church decided what is and what is not canonical, and the ordering of the included books. To say that those 2 verse apply to the entire Bible is flat out not correct.
3) All of the books in the Bible were written by verifiable, living people? Not to be rude, but I would be interested if you can show me proof of Moses. Or the even the exodus from Egypt. I keep an eye out for such things.
4) Polygamy is not contrary to the Christian Biblical view. Prophets of the Old Testament were polygamous. Again, it depends on interpretations of the Bible and Christianity, and there is no one authority for that.
5) The LDS church, and virtually all Christian denominations, are harmonious with Galataions 1:6-8. All those verses say is that people were quickly falling away from the teachings of the apostles and Jesus Christ, and to only trust authoritative sources that preach the same gospel they heard before. As I mentioned, all Christian denominations believe theirs is teaching a correct gospel.
Heh, don't take this as an argument. I just want to clarify some common misunderstandings.
Thanks for the reply. You actually answered the question I was asking:)
I had in mind the HSF cuts when I made my post. I was just wondering if there were others. While the NSF cuts seem important, they do not seem to be a trend. For example, the article points out that before the cuts, Congress tried to double the NSF budget.
Overall, what I was looking for, was a number of items that show a serious lack of commitment to science. While there are some blips that need to be corrected, I'm more weary than ever that the problem is not caused by partisan politics.
The 44% of the US population that don't believe in evolution of any form believe there's a God who's idea of a good time is toss dinosaur bones around the world making them look millions of years older than our 4000 or 5000 year old Earth. As if his time couldn't be better spent smiting creationists or something.
But really, if you have such a large population that simply can't believe facts, then how on Earth can science advance in that kind of environment.
Wow, what a pretentious and arrogant response.
Have you ever considered that this 44% of the US population simply doesn't care very much about the science of evolution, that they have never pondered it deeply? That most of their lives are spent gabbing with friends, working at their jobs, and raising children?
I remember hearing a study a while back that 50% of Americans didn't know how long it took for the earth to revolve around the sun. And only 5% were able to correctly explain what a molecule was. Does that make the majority of Americans slack-jawed stupid? No, they just don't care to ponder science. Many of these folks are just too busy with other complicated things of life to learn these basic science facts.
Then again, maybe this 44% of the American population is simply turned off from science because of the arrogance which you so confidently exude.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the only major science/politics debates concern the following:
1) Creationism taught alongside evolution in biology or philosphy in a few public schools.
2) The federal government doesn't actively fund embryonic stem cell research beyond very limited lines.
Is there any other ways in which science is degrading in this country besides the above two examples? It just seems to me that all these Slashdot stories are just making mountains out of molehills. I simply cannot see where these large dents in science are coming from. I know people are paranoid that Southern conservatives will take over the country and ban all science classes, but the reality is, we're not seeing it. Sure there are some anti-science blips, but overall, the above two aren't really affecting the numbers of students seeking science careers or America's abiltiy to lead the world in science.
So again, how is science being degraded in this country? Is it funding? Various science budgets go down, while others go up (for example, NASA has been given sizeable funding increases for the past few years now.) If it's not funding, then it is just a general trend of Americans to seek different jobs that don't require science? Or is it that we need better salaries to attract better science teachers? Do core requirements for science need to be raised? Help me out here, is American really becoming more anti-science, or is this just some passing media fad, similar to the fads of the summer of shark attacks and the flesh eating bacteria craze?
Sorry for the exaggeration, but what most people in the US still do not realize is that NASA is not the only research institution facing mass layoffs....At the same time tens of billions of dollars are shifted to religious extremists.
...and you didn't provide a single source for all of your claims. Don't get mad at the uninformed world when you're uninformed yourself. I posted this as an AC earlier, but it needs repeating.
These current layoffs are just from shifting priorities. Which means that in the end with all these budget increases, there is a net gain of jobs towards science.
That being said, do I think they purposely skew the data to underreport unemployment? Of course they do.
No, they're very thorough and consistent. They measure unemployement according to 6 different categories. This started in 1994. Before that, they only had one measurement. They currently peg the U-3 category used now against the old system used prior to '94.
If you want, you can see the statistics and descriptions here or even make yourself some graphs here
Now, unless you want to claim that Dick Cheney is secretly driving his SUV's on Mars, that means the cause of the rise in temperature must be mainly external. And, oh look, here's a study that's found just that.
Not quite. From your article:
"The Sun may have minimally contributed about 10 to 30 percent of the 1980-2002 global surface warming," the researchers said in a statement today.
10 to 30 percent is not mainly extenral as you said it was. It's just somewhat external. You did mention other examples, such as Mars heating up and Venus heating up...but you didn't give us any sources to explain just how great the heating was. Is it just a slight amount that does not compare to Earth's heating? Or is it comparable to Earth's current warming trend? I fully agree it's important that people are aware of all the factors, but it does no good when any one side hypes one possible cause and ignores the others.
I'm sad my city voted down Utopia. Qwest sent every one of their lobbyists out to stop this plan of FTTH for every home and business in the city. They argued it would fail and cost the cities money. But if it failed, then the fiber plan would go out to the highest bidder. Obviously, Qwest could have afforded it had they known it would fail....but they knew it wouldn't fail. So they had to stop it.
Luckily other cities voted for it. Already some are offering cheap plans for 15MB down and up, with businesses getting 30 MB down and up.
will the pulses keep travelling in a straight line and vaporize whatever is in front of them on earth?
Because the jet will be moving and the airborne object to be destroyed will also be moving. If a miss occurred, the laser beam would probably move too fast along the ground to do any damage.
Just because he didn't specifically say he supports "equal time" he did say that he supports the ID idea
There is a *huge* difference between saying he supports "equal time" and saying he supports the idea of intelligent design in classrooms. One suggests that an equal amount of time must be spent on 2 approaches. The other suggests anywhere from a simple evolution disclaimer about intelligent design to equal time.
Why lump Bush with other religious leaders who condemn evolution?
Lumping in other non-political religious leaders beliefs can only result in bias. If you can prove that a Protestant Bush listened to this individual Catholic leader halfway across the world, then it becomes revelant. Until then, you cannot post any religious persons opinion, and say Bush must share that because he is religious as well. Would you like it if I found a extremist nutcase who is against Bush on this issue, posted it side by side with your quotes, and suggested both of you essentially believe the same thing?
If you seriously think that this president's thinking is not heavily swayed by religious fundamentalism, you're seriously delusional yourself.
Yes, he is swayed. But that doesn't mean we are justified in putting words in his mouth in an attempt to guess what he is thinking and what he may say in the future.
C'mon, sombody *please* mod this guy down.
Grow up. Modding down simple political opinions because you disagree with it is pathetic.
Just because you see no difference with "equal time" and any religious influence, doesn't mean an incorrect headline is justified.
Headlines like this create more problems than they solve. For example, some of us see a difference in whether Bush believes on thing, and whether he actively attempts to legislate his beliefs. So far, he only expressed his opinion on intelligent design taught in schools. I am fine with that. If he attempts to legislate this particular opinion, I'd be opposed.
The article said nothing about Bush supporting "Equal Time". Also, why lump Bush with other religious leaders who condemn evolution? This whole summary smacks of Slashdot sensationalism.
What? Somehow barring other ISP's from using cable or phone lines is supposed to make the infrastructure grow faster?
Luckily, we have the benefit of the current situation to see what actually happens when one type of data lines are open (phone company copper and fiber) and another is closed (cable). According to the proposal's logic, cable should have exploded with new infrastructure, while phone companies would have been cautious in growth.
But that IS NOT what is current being seen. Both are growing at roughly the same pace. In some situations, cable outpaces the phone company (such as Comcast over Qwest), but in others it is the reverse (such as Verizon over Comcast). So given the current situation as a measure of future performance, I don't think this law will change anything, except barring other ISP's from using DSL.
As an alternate fix, why can't others who want to use cable or phone lines pay a decent price to lease the lines? Enough that it gives the phone company and cable company a profit for laying and leasing the lines? That way, it would be profitable for the phone and cable companies to run new lines.
The ACLU of Utah is a little more liberally slanted than other ACLU chapters nationwide. They are hypersensitive to any government/morality or government/religion interaction.
For example, recently a very popular comprimise solution was reached between Salt Lake City and the LDS church to sell a city owned easement to the church in return for cash and a pledge to build a community center in a poorer part of town. But the ACLU sued. It makes no sense, because the land was sold by the government to a private entity, and now the private entity gets to say what is done on their land. But to the Utah chapter of the ACLU, they think something is fundamentally wrong that the private entity is a religious institution. The ACLU's arguments range from the notion that private land that appears public should have a different set of rules apply to it, to their time old classic that the government can make private business deals all it wants, as long as the private party isn't religious. It's really weird sometimes.
Given that the ACLU arguments intentionally chose not to mention that this filter is opt-in only, I'd guess they are just filing a lawsuit due to their hypersensitivity to this moral issue. I mean, obviously the ACLU isn't concerned with the businesses having to setup extra components to their network accomodate a government regulation, and they aren't mad at possible vague phrases in the law. What else is left? That they are worried the government gets to decide what's on this opt-in list? How is that any different that the telemarketers opt-out list? Since the ACLU didn't sue the federal goverment over the definitions of what is a telemarketer, are they suing Utah over their definition of what's pornography? It doesn't make much sense no matter how you look at it, except that the people who make up the ACLU chapter of Utah are simply irked by this law.
Slashdot Mirror
Add another Slashdot victom here. I used to get mod points weekly. After I complained about Michael (and got a post of mine instantly modded from +3 down to -1), I haven't seen them since.
Overall, I find it odd that CmdrTaco complains about Digg censorship, when Slashdot itself has its own glaring examples. For example, check out this thread where every single comment was modded down to -1. Even worse, once when a thread was knocked down to -1, those who mod up anything, *anything* in that thread no longer get mod points.
VB.Net is syntactically a lot different from classic VB. If you're going to make the switch, you might as well learn C#. Then you will also be familiar with C/C++ style coding.
I disagree. If you have a VB 6 project with hundreds of thousands of lines of code, and the code is clean enough, then you can use a code converter utility to move almost all of your code to VB.NET. In most business environments, it is much better to be quickly up and running on VB.NET, than it is to rewrite hundreds of thousands of lines in C#.
Perhaps Google is simply trying to become evil like Slashdot has been.
Why turn a scientific discovery into an Intelligent Design bashing session? Seriously, I don't believe in ID either, but I don't see the need to use a discovery to bash some seemingly unrelated philosophy. What's next, bashing politicians when health discoveries are made, or religious leaders when crime statistics are mentioned, or talk show hosts when global warming studies are released? Does everything have to be this divisive?
The Slashdot story summary is wrong. But what should we expect from Slashdot editors who have political bones to pick? The Slashdot summary says "The report says that under a 2002 presidential order, the National Security Agency has been unconstitutionally and illegally monitoring international communications of hundreds in the U.S."
However, that is not the case. While controversial, the NY Times does not go that far. The most they do is quote some critics who believe it crossed a legal line. Simply having some critics suggest it's unconstitional and illegal hardly makes it so. As the report says:
Some officials familiar with it say they consider warrantless eavesdropping inside the United States to be unlawful and possibly unconstitutional, amounting to an improper search. One government official involved in the operation said he privately complained to a Congressional official about his doubts about the program's legality. But nothing came of his inquiry. "People just looked the other way because they didn't want to know what was going on," he said.
Bush breaks the law to infringe on Americans' rights. Where are Dubya's defenders now? Do you, GOP fans, want the NSA reading your email?
Well, I tend to hold to the liberal idea where people are innocent until proven guilty.
You didn't respond to my points directly. You danced around them. You are stuck in a mindset where your opinions are the one true measuring stick. A great example of this is your comment "Your statement is not a statement.". You called something a statement and then said it was not a statement. You do not argue, you blabberingly define "the right opinion", and use all manner of logical twists to support your one right way. Unfortunately, religious opinions are relative, until they can be proved. Just because you think one opinion is obvious does not mean you are right or you have proved anything.
:)
A majority vote does not define Christianity. If so, Catholics could easily pull most "Christian" doctrines in their favor by their sheer numbers. I personally do not think that Jesus Christ gave the majority of his followers the authority to define his gospel. Also, a majority of Biblical scholars do not accept your rather fundamentalist view of the promise in Revelations. In fact, you are one of the first people I've heard in years who still believe in that argument from Revelations and the baggage it carries.
I also specifically asked for proof of Moses, to follow your claim that "All other books in the Bible were written by verifiable, living people". You did not verify Moses.
Next, Jesus describing the Godhead and his followers as One does not mean he defined marriages in that context as well. And Titus 1:6 (and 1 Timothy 3:2) explains that elders and priests must at least be married, while probably limiting those two priesthood offices to one wife only. Intrestingly, the Greek Orthodox church interprets 1 Timothy 3:2 as saying everyone but bishops can be married. Does that mean Greek Orthodox are not Christian, because they lose the majority rules vote? Overall, I see no New Testament teaching forbidding polygamy. At the same time, I see no New Testament teaching supporting it either. Unfortunately, the New Testament is lacking in doctrinal detail. Often, the apostles will causally mention various doctrines, because the people knew the full details of it. But when search for these full details, we discover they are missing. The detailed definition of marriages is one such thing that is not found.
King David was polygamous. 2 Samuel 12:7-8 shows God himself gave David his wives. 7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
Now, you don't have to accept that plural marriages existed after Old Testament times, but I find it strange when people do scriptural gymnastics to discount David's or Abraham's marriages as not really marriages or not supported by God in the scriptures.
And finally "Non-Mormons do not accept the Mormon interpretation, thus another point for them being considered separate." Non-Catholics do not accept the Catholic interpretation. Non-Jehovahs witnesses do not accept that interpretation. You can see where this leads. Just because one's person opinion is that anothers is not harmonious enough to be Christian, does not mean they become the sole authority on who is a Christian and who isn't.
So the question should again be asked. Who is Christian? It depends on who you ask.
1) Mormons accept that many do not view them as Christians. But some do. It's the same for Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox Christians, liberal Christians, Jehovas Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, etc. Who gets to decide who is Christian and who is not?
2) The Bible is a compliation of books. The condition in the last chapter of Revelations applies only to the Book of Revelations. The Book of Revelations wasn't compiled with the rest of the Bible until hundreds of years later when the Catholic church decided what is and what is not canonical, and the ordering of the included books. To say that those 2 verse apply to the entire Bible is flat out not correct.
3) All of the books in the Bible were written by verifiable, living people? Not to be rude, but I would be interested if you can show me proof of Moses. Or the even the exodus from Egypt. I keep an eye out for such things.
4) Polygamy is not contrary to the Christian Biblical view. Prophets of the Old Testament were polygamous. Again, it depends on interpretations of the Bible and Christianity, and there is no one authority for that.
5) The LDS church, and virtually all Christian denominations, are harmonious with Galataions 1:6-8. All those verses say is that people were quickly falling away from the teachings of the apostles and Jesus Christ, and to only trust authoritative sources that preach the same gospel they heard before. As I mentioned, all Christian denominations believe theirs is teaching a correct gospel.
Heh, don't take this as an argument. I just want to clarify some common misunderstandings.
Thanks for the reply. You actually answered the question I was asking :)
I had in mind the HSF cuts when I made my post. I was just wondering if there were others. While the NSF cuts seem important, they do not seem to be a trend. For example, the article points out that before the cuts, Congress tried to double the NSF budget.
Overall, what I was looking for, was a number of items that show a serious lack of commitment to science. While there are some blips that need to be corrected, I'm more weary than ever that the problem is not caused by partisan politics.
The 44% of the US population that don't believe in evolution of any form believe there's a God who's idea of a good time is toss dinosaur bones around the world making them look millions of years older than our 4000 or 5000 year old Earth. As if his time couldn't be better spent smiting creationists or something. But really, if you have such a large population that simply can't believe facts, then how on Earth can science advance in that kind of environment.
Wow, what a pretentious and arrogant response.
Have you ever considered that this 44% of the US population simply doesn't care very much about the science of evolution, that they have never pondered it deeply? That most of their lives are spent gabbing with friends, working at their jobs, and raising children?
I remember hearing a study a while back that 50% of Americans didn't know how long it took for the earth to revolve around the sun. And only 5% were able to correctly explain what a molecule was. Does that make the majority of Americans slack-jawed stupid? No, they just don't care to ponder science. Many of these folks are just too busy with other complicated things of life to learn these basic science facts.
Then again, maybe this 44% of the American population is simply turned off from science because of the arrogance which you so confidently exude.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the only major science/politics debates concern the following:
1) Creationism taught alongside evolution in biology or philosphy in a few public schools.
2) The federal government doesn't actively fund embryonic stem cell research beyond very limited lines.
Is there any other ways in which science is degrading in this country besides the above two examples? It just seems to me that all these Slashdot stories are just making mountains out of molehills. I simply cannot see where these large dents in science are coming from. I know people are paranoid that Southern conservatives will take over the country and ban all science classes, but the reality is, we're not seeing it. Sure there are some anti-science blips, but overall, the above two aren't really affecting the numbers of students seeking science careers or America's abiltiy to lead the world in science.
So again, how is science being degraded in this country? Is it funding? Various science budgets go down, while others go up (for example, NASA has been given sizeable funding increases for the past few years now.) If it's not funding, then it is just a general trend of Americans to seek different jobs that don't require science? Or is it that we need better salaries to attract better science teachers? Do core requirements for science need to be raised? Help me out here, is American really becoming more anti-science, or is this just some passing media fad, similar to the fads of the summer of shark attacks and the flesh eating bacteria craze?
The NASA bugdet has been increasing pretty steadily under Bush, and Bush just passed a 6% funding increase for 2005 and a 2.4% funding increase for 2006.
These current layoffs are just from shifting priorities. Which means that in the end with all these budget increases, there is a net gain of jobs towards science.
That being said, do I think they purposely skew the data to underreport unemployment? Of course they do.
No, they're very thorough and consistent. They measure unemployement according to 6 different categories. This started in 1994. Before that, they only had one measurement. They currently peg the U-3 category used now against the old system used prior to '94.
If you want, you can see the statistics and descriptions here or even make yourself some graphs here
Not quite. From your article: 10 to 30 percent is not mainly extenral as you said it was. It's just somewhat external. You did mention other examples, such as Mars heating up and Venus heating up...but you didn't give us any sources to explain just how great the heating was. Is it just a slight amount that does not compare to Earth's heating? Or is it comparable to Earth's current warming trend? I fully agree it's important that people are aware of all the factors, but it does no good when any one side hypes one possible cause and ignores the others.
I'm sad my city voted down Utopia. Qwest sent every one of their lobbyists out to stop this plan of FTTH for every home and business in the city. They argued it would fail and cost the cities money. But if it failed, then the fiber plan would go out to the highest bidder. Obviously, Qwest could have afforded it had they known it would fail....but they knew it wouldn't fail. So they had to stop it.
Luckily other cities voted for it. Already some are offering cheap plans for 15MB down and up, with businesses getting 30 MB down and up.
will the pulses keep travelling in a straight line and vaporize whatever is in front of them on earth?
Because the jet will be moving and the airborne object to be destroyed will also be moving. If a miss occurred, the laser beam would probably move too fast along the ground to do any damage.
It's been a while since Slashdot had an article bashing Bush that included religion and science. Nice to know the bias is still strong.
Just because he didn't specifically say he supports "equal time" he did say that he supports the ID idea
There is a *huge* difference between saying he supports "equal time" and saying he supports the idea of intelligent design in classrooms. One suggests that an equal amount of time must be spent on 2 approaches. The other suggests anywhere from a simple evolution disclaimer about intelligent design to equal time.
Why lump Bush with other religious leaders who condemn evolution?
Lumping in other non-political religious leaders beliefs can only result in bias. If you can prove that a Protestant Bush listened to this individual Catholic leader halfway across the world, then it becomes revelant. Until then, you cannot post any religious persons opinion, and say Bush must share that because he is religious as well. Would you like it if I found a extremist nutcase who is against Bush on this issue, posted it side by side with your quotes, and suggested both of you essentially believe the same thing?
If you seriously think that this president's thinking is not heavily swayed by religious fundamentalism, you're seriously delusional yourself.
Yes, he is swayed. But that doesn't mean we are justified in putting words in his mouth in an attempt to guess what he is thinking and what he may say in the future.
C'mon, sombody *please* mod this guy down.
Grow up. Modding down simple political opinions because you disagree with it is pathetic.
Just because you see no difference with "equal time" and any religious influence, doesn't mean an incorrect headline is justified.
Headlines like this create more problems than they solve. For example, some of us see a difference in whether Bush believes on thing, and whether he actively attempts to legislate his beliefs. So far, he only expressed his opinion on intelligent design taught in schools. I am fine with that. If he attempts to legislate this particular opinion, I'd be opposed.
The article said nothing about Bush supporting "Equal Time". Also, why lump Bush with other religious leaders who condemn evolution? This whole summary smacks of Slashdot sensationalism.
Take a look at Ckwop's posting history. He's a first post troll whore.
What? Somehow barring other ISP's from using cable or phone lines is supposed to make the infrastructure grow faster?
Luckily, we have the benefit of the current situation to see what actually happens when one type of data lines are open (phone company copper and fiber) and another is closed (cable). According to the proposal's logic, cable should have exploded with new infrastructure, while phone companies would have been cautious in growth.
But that IS NOT what is current being seen. Both are growing at roughly the same pace. In some situations, cable outpaces the phone company (such as Comcast over Qwest), but in others it is the reverse (such as Verizon over Comcast). So given the current situation as a measure of future performance, I don't think this law will change anything, except barring other ISP's from using DSL.
As an alternate fix, why can't others who want to use cable or phone lines pay a decent price to lease the lines? Enough that it gives the phone company and cable company a profit for laying and leasing the lines? That way, it would be profitable for the phone and cable companies to run new lines.
and the UCS is usually quite unbiased on these things.
Hahaha, you have got to be kidding me! The Union of Concerned Scientists is an activist left leaning environmental group. They are hardly unbiased.
If only I had paid for a subscription to Slashdot. Then I could have seen the problem early and helped prevent Timothy from screwing up his job.
The ACLU of Utah is a little more liberally slanted than other ACLU chapters nationwide. They are hypersensitive to any government/morality or government/religion interaction.
For example, recently a very popular comprimise solution was reached between Salt Lake City and the LDS church to sell a city owned easement to the church in return for cash and a pledge to build a community center in a poorer part of town. But the ACLU sued. It makes no sense, because the land was sold by the government to a private entity, and now the private entity gets to say what is done on their land. But to the Utah chapter of the ACLU, they think something is fundamentally wrong that the private entity is a religious institution. The ACLU's arguments range from the notion that private land that appears public should have a different set of rules apply to it, to their time old classic that the government can make private business deals all it wants, as long as the private party isn't religious. It's really weird sometimes.
Given that the ACLU arguments intentionally chose not to mention that this filter is opt-in only, I'd guess they are just filing a lawsuit due to their hypersensitivity to this moral issue. I mean, obviously the ACLU isn't concerned with the businesses having to setup extra components to their network accomodate a government regulation, and they aren't mad at possible vague phrases in the law. What else is left? That they are worried the government gets to decide what's on this opt-in list? How is that any different that the telemarketers opt-out list? Since the ACLU didn't sue the federal goverment over the definitions of what is a telemarketer, are they suing Utah over their definition of what's pornography? It doesn't make much sense no matter how you look at it, except that the people who make up the ACLU chapter of Utah are simply irked by this law.