Bush II - Bachelors and MBA
Least qualified? Not by comparison to some other recent presidents.
Because we all know that an MBA makes you a good president...
Sheesh. I'm expecting to finish my Master's degree this year, and hopefully a PhD a few years from now. Does that mean I'm qualified to be president? Not in the least. Now, if the businesses that Bush has run had been successful, THAT might have been a point in his favor.
His ties to Enron alone are enough to want him out.
Much of the Enron shenanigans were ongoing before he even took office. Clinton had some ties also. Would that have made you impeach Clinton too, or only Bush?
Depends. Did Enron secretly write Clinton's energy policy too? If so, absolutely.
If those "rules" include reining in WMD proliferators
We haven't invaded North Korea yet..
Re:I wonder if this will catch what Mozilla misses
on
DSPAM v2.10 Released
·
· Score: 1
Rather than just stating that it doesn't, think about why it doesn't. Is
it because of the technical superiority of Windows? Or the superior innovation
coming out of Microsoft? Do you think they wrote all those drivers themselves?
Does it matter?
If you need to get your printer/scanner/etc to work with your computer, the important thing is whether the drivers are available or not. If they'll work with Windows and not Linux, then in this case Windows is the superior product for your needs.
IANAL, but actually, strictly speaking, just having a monopoly (without special government licensing and regulation) is still a felony.
So if I start an entirely new business, and nobody else gets into that business (so I have no competitors) that's a felony? After all, I effectively have a monopoly..
I wonder if this will catch what Mozilla misses
on
DSPAM v2.10 Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Right now the only spam getting through my Mozilla filter is stuff that starts with one or two unrelated sentences, then goes into the advertising with any spam-type words (viagra, etc) horribly mispelled.
If you believe the NRA would consider the above unreasonable, you don't know much about the NRA
True; I'm just going by what I read in the paper. It seems that whenever there's a proposed bill that would institute any kind of checks or require something like gun locks, the NRA is against it.
For example, in 2000 Colorado passed a bill requiring background checks at gun shows. (That would be the enforcement of point b above) The NRA funded the opposition to it. (Specifically, the bill required any seller at a gun show to run a background check before selling someone a gun, wheras previously only liscensed dealers had that requirement; you could sell hundreds of guns without background checks as long as you claimed to be selling from your private collection. It was passed after the girl who bought the guns for the Columbine massacre testified that she deliberately sought out someone who would sell her guns without doing a background check)
While I'm aware that the NRA is active in firearms education, the impression that I get from their activities in Colorado is that they oppose any restriction on gun ownership.
hmm. First off, you're the only one who's assuming something. (In this case, I was commenting on your response to somebody else)
In the second place, my point is, why in the world would you expect someone from another country to know the name of a social program from the US half a century ago?
Nah, no contradiction. People believe that the NSA is 15 years ahead of everyone else and the CIA is full of bumbling incompetants:-)
(Although supposedly they DID tell Bush that 9/11 was coming, but you know nobody with any business seeing such documents is going to confirm that, so no way to know if it's true or not..)
While quantum computers aren't anywhere near being able to handle 128 bits (at least, the ones we know about), I believe that Shor's algorithm *has* been implemented in practice. So if you can build a large enough quantum computer, you can break RSA with no problem.
Income Tax is a relatively recent invention, instituted in 1913 by the 16th amendment. it was originally supposed to support itself by regulating trade, tariffs, licensing fees, etc. There is some discrepancies in the way the 16th amendment was added, but the supreme court let it stand, so we are stuck with it.
I would argue those to be a form of taxation. Certainly, you could find other sources of funding than income tax.
I can provide, easily, references that were authored during the whole history of the country.
Please do. While I won't get to them for a while (I'm swamped in work at the moment, even though I'm wasting my day off posting to Slashdot;-)) I'm hoping to read some history this summer.
Well, here's my idea of reasonable gun control. In order to own guns, you must:
a) Know how to handle a gun correctly b) Not have any convictions for violent felonies
In addition, if you have small children and don't lock up your guns so they can't get them, I would make you liable for anything that happens as a result of that.
I'm sure the NRA would consider these to be totally unreasonable. What's your idea of reasonable gun control?
As to the more qualified part, the impression I got from the debates, where Bush kept accusing Gore of using "funny numbers" whenever he brought up what things would cost, was that Gore had a better idea of how to handle the budget. Of course, I suppose now we'll never know..
b)"women aren't as [strong/smart/whatever] as men"
er..isn't that true? In general, women AREN'T as strong as men. Obviously there are exceptions, but you would expect the average man to be stronger than the average woman.
Yeah...sounds like a lot of the same things I have against him (although I voted for Gore in 2000; the debates convinced me he was a lot more qualified than Bush) While I'm registered as an independent and usually vote democratic (and yes, I do support reasonable gun control:-)) at heart I'm a fiscal conservative, and I'd vote against any candidate that's run up the deficit Bush has.
Someone should copy this and stick it up as an argument against affirmation action: here's what happens when you fill positions based on [gender|race|etc] rather than qualifications..
True enough...the government isn't exactly known for efficiency. (And it should be, because they don't have the burden of needing to make a profit, so they ought to be able to provide services for less than private corporations)
Once I start working out the idea of no taxes, though, I run into trouble pretty quickly. I can think of a lot of examples, but the following is the big one; maybe you have an answer?
Without taxes, the government has no money. (People, as a rule, aren't going to give money to the government if they don't have to) Thus, no real power. Since the gov. doesn't have money, no police. With no police, no laws.
Of course, the people can put together a militia, but then who pays them? Do you force people to serve? Or do they only protect those willing to pay? Pretty soon you have rival militias wandering around enforcing thier own laws; in a word, anarchy.
Of course, anarchy is very unstable (I know, I know..) so groups end up combining (voluntarily or not) and you end up with the US becoming a group of independant states.
And then someone comes in and conquers us and we end up paying taxes again:-)
No, the system we have is far from perfect, but I really don't see the total abolition of taxes bringing about much improvement. Of course, if you have the answers worked out, I'd be happy to hear them; I'm always willing to save money:-)
So basically it'll be the same as now, only services will cost more due to not having the efficiencies of scale the government can provide, and those who don't have money will be excluded from them?
Slashdot Mirror
Bush II - Bachelors and MBA Least qualified? Not by comparison to some other recent presidents.
Because we all know that an MBA makes you a good president...
Sheesh. I'm expecting to finish my Master's degree this year, and hopefully a PhD a few years from now. Does that mean I'm qualified to be president? Not in the least. Now, if the businesses that Bush has run had been successful, THAT might have been a point in his favor.
His ties to Enron alone are enough to want him out. Much of the Enron shenanigans were ongoing before he even took office. Clinton had some ties also. Would that have made you impeach Clinton too, or only Bush?
Depends. Did Enron secretly write Clinton's energy policy too? If so, absolutely.
If those "rules" include reining in WMD proliferators
We haven't invaded North Korea yet..
Any idea if it'll be in Moz 1.7 or 1.8?
Rather than just stating that it doesn't, think about why it doesn't. Is it because of the technical superiority of Windows? Or the superior innovation coming out of Microsoft? Do you think they wrote all those drivers themselves?
Does it matter?
If you need to get your printer/scanner/etc to work with your computer, the important thing is whether the drivers are available or not. If they'll work with Windows and not Linux, then in this case Windows is the superior product for your needs.
And if he keeps running for the next 200 years, that might eventually happen..
I mean, has the man EVER held ANY elective office? Does he have ANY qualifications for the job aside from not being from one of the major parties?
IANAL, but actually, strictly speaking, just having a monopoly (without special government licensing and regulation) is still a felony.
So if I start an entirely new business, and nobody else gets into that business (so I have no competitors) that's a felony? After all, I effectively have a monopoly..
Right now the only spam getting through my Mozilla filter is stuff that starts with one or two unrelated sentences, then goes into the advertising with any spam-type words (viagra, etc) horribly mispelled.
If you believe the NRA would consider the above unreasonable, you don't know much about the NRA
True; I'm just going by what I read in the paper. It seems that whenever there's a proposed bill that would institute any kind of checks or require something like gun locks, the NRA is against it.
For example, in 2000 Colorado passed a bill requiring background checks at gun shows. (That would be the enforcement of point b above) The NRA funded the opposition to it. (Specifically, the bill required any seller at a gun show to run a background check before selling someone a gun, wheras previously only liscensed dealers had that requirement; you could sell hundreds of guns without background checks as long as you claimed to be selling from your private collection. It was passed after the girl who bought the guns for the Columbine massacre testified that she deliberately sought out someone who would sell her guns without doing a background check)
While I'm aware that the NRA is active in firearms education, the impression that I get from their activities in Colorado is that they oppose any restriction on gun ownership.
Thanks! I was particularly wondering about MOS; you had lost me a little there :-)
hmm. First off, you're the only one who's assuming something. (In this case, I was commenting on your response to somebody else)
In the second place, my point is, why in the world would you expect someone from another country to know the name of a social program from the US half a century ago?
Nah, no contradiction. People believe that the NSA is 15 years ahead of everyone else and the CIA is full of bumbling incompetants :-)
(Although supposedly they DID tell Bush that 9/11 was coming, but you know nobody with any business seeing such documents is going to confirm that, so no way to know if it's true or not..)
Just a point of info..
While quantum computers aren't anywhere near being able to handle 128 bits (at least, the ones we know about), I believe that Shor's algorithm *has* been implemented in practice. So if you can build a large enough quantum computer, you can break RSA with no problem.
Income Tax is a relatively recent invention, instituted in 1913 by the 16th amendment. it was originally supposed to support itself by regulating trade, tariffs, licensing fees, etc. There is some discrepancies in the way the 16th amendment was added, but the supreme court let it stand, so we are stuck with it.
;-)) I'm hoping to read some history this summer.
I would argue those to be a form of taxation. Certainly, you could find other sources of funding than income tax.
I can provide, easily, references that were authored during the whole history of the country.
Please do. While I won't get to them for a while (I'm swamped in work at the moment, even though I'm wasting my day off posting to Slashdot
Well, here's my idea of reasonable gun control. In order to own guns, you must:
a) Know how to handle a gun correctly
b) Not have any convictions for violent felonies
In addition, if you have small children and don't lock up your guns so they can't get them, I would make you liable for anything that happens as a result of that.
I'm sure the NRA would consider these to be totally unreasonable. What's your idea of reasonable gun control?
As to the more qualified part, the impression I got from the debates, where Bush kept accusing Gore of using "funny numbers" whenever he brought up what things would cost, was that Gore had a better idea of how to handle the budget. Of course, I suppose now we'll never know..
Now let's see you tell us the names of some famous programs in Canadian history..
Needing to make a profit is quite an incentive to not be inefficient, actually.
;-) I'll take a look at the website, though.
Ok, bad choice of words...I mean, all things being equal, the nonprofit ought to be able to have lower prices because it only needs to break even.
Of course, in practice..
There are plenty of examples of anarchies that have lasted for several generations.
I'd just as soon not live in an anarchy for any length of time, thanks.
er...would you mind defining the ancronyms for those of us without military experience?
In theory, yes.
:-)
In practice...well, let's not get into another political debate just yet
That's what India is for..
I assume they're talking about Hawkeye?
b)"women aren't as [strong/smart/whatever] as men"
er..isn't that true? In general, women AREN'T as strong as men. Obviously there are exceptions, but you would expect the average man to be stronger than the average woman.
Yeah...sounds like a lot of the same things I have against him (although I voted for Gore in 2000; the debates convinced me he was a lot more qualified than Bush) While I'm registered as an independent and usually vote democratic (and yes, I do support reasonable gun control :-)) at heart I'm a fiscal conservative, and I'd vote against any candidate that's run up the deficit Bush has.
Someone should copy this and stick it up as an argument against affirmation action: here's what happens when you fill positions based on [gender|race|etc] rather than qualifications..
True enough...the government isn't exactly known for efficiency. (And it should be, because they don't have the burden of needing to make a profit, so they ought to be able to provide services for less than private corporations)
:-)
:-)
Once I start working out the idea of no taxes, though, I run into trouble pretty quickly. I can think of a lot of examples, but the following is the big one; maybe you have an answer?
Without taxes, the government has no money. (People, as a rule, aren't going to give money to the government if they don't have to) Thus, no real power. Since the gov. doesn't have money, no police. With no police, no laws.
Of course, the people can put together a militia, but then who pays them? Do you force people to serve? Or do they only protect those willing to pay? Pretty soon you have rival militias wandering around enforcing thier own laws; in a word, anarchy.
Of course, anarchy is very unstable (I know, I know..) so groups end up combining (voluntarily or not) and you end up with the US becoming a group of independant states.
And then someone comes in and conquers us and we end up paying taxes again
No, the system we have is far from perfect, but I really don't see the total abolition of taxes bringing about much improvement. Of course, if you have the answers worked out, I'd be happy to hear them; I'm always willing to save money
At the risk of being off topic, but out of curiosity...what do you think should have been done in the Elian case?
So basically it'll be the same as now, only services will cost more due to not having the efficiencies of scale the government can provide, and those who don't have money will be excluded from them?