For the curious, Article 2, Section 2: "[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."
Treaties of the United States have to be ratified by the Senate. This is hardly news.
It's worth noting that this certain young Republican's failed business ventures weren't even funded by his dad, they were funded by some good friends of his dad from Saudi Arabia.
No redistribution of wealth, up or down. Everyone should pay their fair share, the poor, the rich, and those in between.
What exactly happens to the > 5% of the population who need to work to survive day-to-day and cannot find work no matter how hard they try? Do we let them starve to death or freeze on the streets? How about their children (who probably had no control over their situation, regardless of what you think of the adults)? What happens to the elderly or disabled who cannot work and had their pension taken away from them? What happens to a 15-year-old with lymphoma if their parents can't afford treatment?
It sounds great to be in favor of a "fair share", but it sounds rather callous to let people die because you're not willing to spend a portion of your income to help them out.
Postgres, like most other really awesome open source projects, is not for sale. To anyone. For any price. That's one reason Microsoft, Oracle, et al hate them so much - when it was startup companies, they could always pull out the checkbook and make the problem go away. With the FSF, Apache, Mozilla, and so forth, they can't.
There are 3 perfectly reasonable explanations for why older people tend to be more conservative and younger people tend to be more liberal that have nothing to do with acquiring knowledge and experience.
The first is economic. Conservatism generally benefits people who have high wealth and income (with lower taxes and strong police protection of wealth). Liberalism generally benefits people who have low wealth and income (with social welfare programs and regulatory protection from unfair contracts). Over the course of a middle-class person's adult life, they tend to start out rather poor in their 20's, and by their 50's have accumulated some wealth and command a pretty high salary. Slowly but surely the policies that were benefiting them in their 20's become a burden in their 50's.
The second is an effect of aging. Conservatism usually presents fantasies of a glorious past, while liberalism presents fantasies of a glorious future. If the prime of your life (when you were earning a good wage, sleeping with beautiful partners, physically capable, etc) was in 1955, you're going to be more attracted to fantasies of 1955. If the prime of your life will be in 2025, you're going to be more attracted to fantasies of 2025.
The third is cultural. People who grew up in the Deep South in the 1950's, for instance, spent their formative years in an environment where the KKK was a fairly normal part of life. People who grew up in the Deep South in the 1990's spent their formative years wanting to be like Mike. It's no surprise that people growing up in those different environments would have very different attitudes regarding race relations. Racism or lack thereof leads to dramatically different conclusions about what should be done about urban poverty (e.g. "welfare queens").
John McCain's problem wasn't his age: His problem was that he openly embraced the crazy side of his party (with Sarah Palin as just the tip of that iceberg).
Well, not exactly, because Grand Moff Tarquin gave the order to destroy Alderaan, not Darth Vader. But Obi-wan (from what I could tell) did consider himself at least partially responsible for the fall of the Republic.
Are those that give the Bad Guys the skills they need to do bad things as responsible as the Bad Guys? Heck no. But don't tell me there wasn't a flight instructor tormenting himself when he found out who had hijacked the aircraft on 9/11. Moral people take responsibility for the effects of their actions whether or not they were the intended effects.
You didn't need to go there: You could have just as easily gone with the British Empire invading various third-world countries to "help" them, or the US government turning Latin America into their playground.
The United States sponsored the terrorists too. A major reason Osama bin Laden is so skilled at terrorism is that he learned from and was at one point funded by the CIA. The primary reason the US thought Saddam Hussein had chemical munitions left is that the US had sold them to him in the 1980's in the hopes that he would use them against Iran. While simultaneously selling weapons to the Iranian regime in the hopes that they would use them against Hussein in Iraq, and using the profits to fund guerrilla fighters in Nicaragua.
Although you're right about one thing: the US usually doesn't use outside terror groups the way poorer countries do. When they want to terrorize a population, say, Grenada, they don't use terrorists, they use Marines.
I've been around peace activists all my life. Contrary to what you might think, especially in light of much of the propaganda about peace activists, they have absolute respect for the soldiers and why they joined. What they're against is idiots ordering them into combat for no good reason.
Here's the other piece of the puzzle: Soldiers who join up with the best of intentions often have severe psychological problems while serving and after their service is up. 40 years ago, there were plenty of decent men who went to Vietnam to serve and protect their country, and while they were there they found themselves doing things to civilians that still give them nightmares. Many of the guys who committed the My Lai Massacre were perfectly decent and loyal folks before they left their home.
In short, war is hell, and peace activists are trying to prevent soldiers from having to go through it. In addition, they are generally supportive of efforts to help veterans deal with both the physical and psychological damage that all too many come home with (which is a point of disagreement with the Pentagon brass).
It's worth mentioning that any halfway-competent leader of Iran would be pursuing nuclear weapons as quickly as possible.
Why? Because if you have nukes, the United States generally leaves you alone (cf N Korea). If you don't have nukes, the United States may just lie and show bogus evidence that you have WMDs, and invade anyways, treaties and UN resolutions notwithstanding (cf Iraq). They already have good reason not to trust the United States: The US overthrew Iran's democratic government in the 1950's, sold weapons to their enemy in the 1980's, and have significant elements of the government openly advocating invasion of Iran. Under those circumstances, doing anything other than actually acquiring nuclear weapons would be stupid.
We're Pirates in space, zooming along, protecting our user base. We're Pirates in space, moving around, avoiding the copyright case. When lawyers attack us, we give 'em the finger and then we spray 'em with Mace. We're Pirates in space, just zooming along, protecting our user base!
As a modern-day druid, we know full well what portions of what we do are part of documented religious practices of the ancient Celts. For instance, we've discarded the part about stabbing prisoners with swords and making prophecies based on their entrails and what movements they made as they died. On the flip side, many of us have in fact studied what's known about ancient druidic practice, and will make use of the ideas that can be translated into modern times. The gods that are worshiped as part of druidic rituals are generally speaking the same ones mentioned in early Welsh and Irish literature, or the Roman writer's descriptions of Celtic religion.
And it's worth noting that even if modern druids were direct religious descendants of ancient druids, Stonehenge was built about 2500 years before the first documentary evidence of druids. There's also archaelogical evidence of an invasion around 1200 BCE, which some scholars think was what brought the Celts (and thus druidism) to Britain in the first place.
So did Ohio, and it has significantly improved the credibility of our elections without taking much extra time.
Although the other reason for the improvement was that we replaced the very partisan Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell with someone who is actually interested in running a good election. For instance, Blackwell denied voter registrations which just so happened to be from neighborhoods that tended to favor the other major party because the wrong kind of paper was used to print the form. He also generally made sure precincts in those neighborhoods got insufficient numbers of voting machines, and did not train poll workers properly in those areas so as to nearly guarantee long lines on election day. In 2004 (the last election he ran), people in the neighborhoods he was suppressing the vote in had to wait 3-5 hours to vote, as opposed to 30 minutes everywhere else.
Slashdot Mirror
For the curious, Article 2, Section 2:
"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."
Treaties of the United States have to be ratified by the Senate. This is hardly news.
Which would also have to be GPL'd. That's the beauty of the GPL.
It's worth noting that this certain young Republican's failed business ventures weren't even funded by his dad, they were funded by some good friends of his dad from Saudi Arabia.
No redistribution of wealth, up or down. Everyone should pay their fair share, the poor, the rich, and those in between.
What exactly happens to the > 5% of the population who need to work to survive day-to-day and cannot find work no matter how hard they try? Do we let them starve to death or freeze on the streets? How about their children (who probably had no control over their situation, regardless of what you think of the adults)? What happens to the elderly or disabled who cannot work and had their pension taken away from them? What happens to a 15-year-old with lymphoma if their parents can't afford treatment?
It sounds great to be in favor of a "fair share", but it sounds rather callous to let people die because you're not willing to spend a portion of your income to help them out.
Postgres, like most other really awesome open source projects, is not for sale. To anyone. For any price. That's one reason Microsoft, Oracle, et al hate them so much - when it was startup companies, they could always pull out the checkbook and make the problem go away. With the FSF, Apache, Mozilla, and so forth, they can't.
There are 3 perfectly reasonable explanations for why older people tend to be more conservative and younger people tend to be more liberal that have nothing to do with acquiring knowledge and experience.
The first is economic. Conservatism generally benefits people who have high wealth and income (with lower taxes and strong police protection of wealth). Liberalism generally benefits people who have low wealth and income (with social welfare programs and regulatory protection from unfair contracts). Over the course of a middle-class person's adult life, they tend to start out rather poor in their 20's, and by their 50's have accumulated some wealth and command a pretty high salary. Slowly but surely the policies that were benefiting them in their 20's become a burden in their 50's.
The second is an effect of aging. Conservatism usually presents fantasies of a glorious past, while liberalism presents fantasies of a glorious future. If the prime of your life (when you were earning a good wage, sleeping with beautiful partners, physically capable, etc) was in 1955, you're going to be more attracted to fantasies of 1955. If the prime of your life will be in 2025, you're going to be more attracted to fantasies of 2025.
The third is cultural. People who grew up in the Deep South in the 1950's, for instance, spent their formative years in an environment where the KKK was a fairly normal part of life. People who grew up in the Deep South in the 1990's spent their formative years wanting to be like Mike. It's no surprise that people growing up in those different environments would have very different attitudes regarding race relations. Racism or lack thereof leads to dramatically different conclusions about what should be done about urban poverty (e.g. "welfare queens").
In a related news flash, researchers recently discovered that a shocking 50% of workers had performance that measured below the median.
Windows is dying!
While they don't need to give in to their wishes, there are some motivations that could easily come up:
1. Speaking gigs
2. Donations to their spouse's organization
3. Free hunting trips
It should also be pointed out that Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts also are true believers of their ideology.
No, it's actually going to be released on December 21, 2012, just in time to bring about the end of the world.
John McCain's problem wasn't his age: His problem was that he openly embraced the crazy side of his party (with Sarah Palin as just the tip of that iceberg).
Well, not exactly, because Grand Moff Tarquin gave the order to destroy Alderaan, not Darth Vader. But Obi-wan (from what I could tell) did consider himself at least partially responsible for the fall of the Republic.
Are those that give the Bad Guys the skills they need to do bad things as responsible as the Bad Guys? Heck no. But don't tell me there wasn't a flight instructor tormenting himself when he found out who had hijacked the aircraft on 9/11. Moral people take responsibility for the effects of their actions whether or not they were the intended effects.
Godwin!
You didn't need to go there: You could have just as easily gone with the British Empire invading various third-world countries to "help" them, or the US government turning Latin America into their playground.
The United States sponsored the terrorists too. A major reason Osama bin Laden is so skilled at terrorism is that he learned from and was at one point funded by the CIA. The primary reason the US thought Saddam Hussein had chemical munitions left is that the US had sold them to him in the 1980's in the hopes that he would use them against Iran. While simultaneously selling weapons to the Iranian regime in the hopes that they would use them against Hussein in Iraq, and using the profits to fund guerrilla fighters in Nicaragua.
Although you're right about one thing: the US usually doesn't use outside terror groups the way poorer countries do. When they want to terrorize a population, say, Grenada, they don't use terrorists, they use Marines.
I've been around peace activists all my life. Contrary to what you might think, especially in light of much of the propaganda about peace activists, they have absolute respect for the soldiers and why they joined. What they're against is idiots ordering them into combat for no good reason.
Here's the other piece of the puzzle: Soldiers who join up with the best of intentions often have severe psychological problems while serving and after their service is up. 40 years ago, there were plenty of decent men who went to Vietnam to serve and protect their country, and while they were there they found themselves doing things to civilians that still give them nightmares. Many of the guys who committed the My Lai Massacre were perfectly decent and loyal folks before they left their home.
In short, war is hell, and peace activists are trying to prevent soldiers from having to go through it. In addition, they are generally supportive of efforts to help veterans deal with both the physical and psychological damage that all too many come home with (which is a point of disagreement with the Pentagon brass).
I wonder how many people will create Wizard characters named "Galstaff, Sorcerer of Light"?
Please stop giving them ideas.
It's worth mentioning that any halfway-competent leader of Iran would be pursuing nuclear weapons as quickly as possible.
Why? Because if you have nukes, the United States generally leaves you alone (cf N Korea). If you don't have nukes, the United States may just lie and show bogus evidence that you have WMDs, and invade anyways, treaties and UN resolutions notwithstanding (cf Iraq). They already have good reason not to trust the United States: The US overthrew Iran's democratic government in the 1950's, sold weapons to their enemy in the 1980's, and have significant elements of the government openly advocating invasion of Iran. Under those circumstances, doing anything other than actually acquiring nuclear weapons would be stupid.
Hey, I'm a wise guy, not a wise man!
(To the tune of Jews in Space by Mel Brooks)
We're Pirates in space, zooming along, protecting our user base.
We're Pirates in space, moving around, avoiding the copyright case.
When lawyers attack us, we give 'em the finger and then we spray 'em with Mace.
We're Pirates in space, just zooming along, protecting our user base!
Hey, is that different than stuff pulled by the Bush White House? Or for that matter, Alaska Senate candidate Joe Miller having his security team handcuff reporters for asking questions he didn't want to answer?
As a modern-day druid, we know full well what portions of what we do are part of documented religious practices of the ancient Celts. For instance, we've discarded the part about stabbing prisoners with swords and making prophecies based on their entrails and what movements they made as they died. On the flip side, many of us have in fact studied what's known about ancient druidic practice, and will make use of the ideas that can be translated into modern times. The gods that are worshiped as part of druidic rituals are generally speaking the same ones mentioned in early Welsh and Irish literature, or the Roman writer's descriptions of Celtic religion.
And it's worth noting that even if modern druids were direct religious descendants of ancient druids, Stonehenge was built about 2500 years before the first documentary evidence of druids. There's also archaelogical evidence of an invasion around 1200 BCE, which some scholars think was what brought the Celts (and thus druidism) to Britain in the first place.
They've even copyrighted the cover image, so they're now suing people for using this on their websites.
Why bother with a law when they can just do it illegally and have politicians of both major parties defending them?
So did Ohio, and it has significantly improved the credibility of our elections without taking much extra time.
Although the other reason for the improvement was that we replaced the very partisan Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell with someone who is actually interested in running a good election. For instance, Blackwell denied voter registrations which just so happened to be from neighborhoods that tended to favor the other major party because the wrong kind of paper was used to print the form. He also generally made sure precincts in those neighborhoods got insufficient numbers of voting machines, and did not train poll workers properly in those areas so as to nearly guarantee long lines on election day. In 2004 (the last election he ran), people in the neighborhoods he was suppressing the vote in had to wait 3-5 hours to vote, as opposed to 30 minutes everywhere else.