The best resource is still Google. You will need to be a little more patient and a little more competent with your search terms, however. Or you could just write in to Ask Slashdot.
Nah, a ban seems fine. I have little doubt that he got to level 60 with the help of this keyboard. Its good to see a high level get knocked down for this.
Any dunderhead should realize that automating levelling of skills is and SHOULD BE against the rules of an MMORPG. He got what he deserved. He was also deceptive early in the correspondence, trying to convince them he was only using his macro keyboard to change armor sets. Whether weapon skills are important to a priest or not, he gained levels in those skills with this macroing. This also has very little, if anything, to do with WINE. I think that played no part in the expulsion.
1. Google goes public.
2. Things start to turn to shit.
Is this the beginning of the end as demanding investors obsessed with profitability tear down everything that's great about Google?
Here are my comments regarding "So even if the Department of Education was constitutional--and it clearly is not--we should disband that agency because it is terribly inefficient."
That's kind of a scary thing to read, but consider this. That's only part of his plan. Perhaps with the completion of his whole plan, it could work, with people helping other people who can't afford school.
Its not so scary. How did we ever manage to educate our children before the 1970s when Carter established the Department of Education?
My conclusion: Allowing Badnarik into the debate would be a serious impairment to the Kerry campaign, and have little to no effect on the Bush campaign. The Kerry campaign would lose its one given opportunity to outline to the nation a major plank of its platform. The Bush campaign would neatly get to opt-out of a potentially embarrassing debate. This would be a disastrous result for Kerry's chances of winning and an extremely positive result for Bush's.
I fervently disagree with that assessment. Bush has put a blindfold on conservatives regarding his fiscal irresponsibility with the war. Imagine Badnarik calling him out on all of his social spending. No Child Left Behind, prescription drug benefit, proposing 3000 dollars for the unemployed...these things will not sit well with people who want their conservatives to control spending. Of course, Kerry will be undamaged by these criticisms. People expect liberals to spend on social programs. Besides, hearing more opinions is never a bad thing.
Unfortunately, this stunt just lowered my opinion of Badnarik pretty considerably.
Libertarians believe in the essential freedoms. This includes freedom to possess and protect property. So why did Michael violate that freedom? Did he own the land in question, or was it public property?
Judging from the charge of "trespass," I would say no to both.
The university is indeed a public university. Furthermore, you're making a presumption of guilt based merely on the fact that he was charged with the crime.
The libertarian party wouldn't be doing this if they were in the debate, even if all the other 'third' parties were excluded. That much seems self evident. Since that's likely the case, this means its less about what the two main parties are getting and more about what the libertarians are not getting. Which makes the whole thing bullshit from an ethical standpoint.
What brings you to this opinion? Speculation? Anyway, you're dead wrong. The LP qualified for federal matching funds in 2000 and sent the check back. That's how strongly libertarians believe in their ideals, and no Libertarian candidate would participate in a debate funded by public funds.
Then a few questions later he says that literacy in the US has declined dramatically since the nineteenth century. Wow. I wonder where he got that statistic.
Oddly enough, that comes from a study on literacy commissioned by Ted Kennedy.
808, I think that the best way to balance the wishes of the majority with the rights of the minority is to clearly articulate those rights (as in the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments) and then limit government's power with those rights regardless of the wishes of the majority. Of course, if there is adequate super-majority support, the Constitution can be amended as needed. The beauty of the tenth amendment is that it allows each state to operate differently. California, for example, could have large welfare programs, a government that provides many services for its citizens, and is just generally quite large. Montana, on the other hand, can have a minimalist government, providing only the most basic services, like courts, roads, and municipal utility authorities.
As a result, each person can choose what sort of environment he wants to live in. If one person wants a big government that looks after him, he can live in California. If another person wants a small government that leaves him alone, he can move to Montana. Overarching all of this is a federal government that sticks to only the tasks that a federal government is the only reasonable option for, such as national defense and coining money (and all the other enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. Government, like e-mailed advertisements, should be mostly opt-in.
With expressly, there is a clear implication that any power which is not outlined in the constitution may not be wielded by the federal government. This is your interpretation of the amendment without "expressly", but that interpretation is regarded (by essentially everyone who studies law) as wrong. By refusing to include "expressly", the amendment simply states "that all is retained which has not been surrendered." This is trivially true. The Amendment was originally intended to be used the way you want to use it, but politics at the time intervened (because aparently, there were many people who disagreed) and the wording was changed to prevent it from being thus interpreted. Its teeth were taken, as it were.
Indeed, and the new interpretation makes it entirely irrelevant. With the new interpretation, what action could it possibly prohibit the federal government from doing? I do believe the Constitution to be a living document, but the "living" part should come in amending it as necessary, not altering the original meaning intended by the founders.
It surprises me that you would think that the Judicial branch of the United States government, which has the right and duty to interpret the United States constitution, would simply "be unaware" of the 10th Amendment.
It might interest you to know that the USSC was NOT granted exclusive authority to analyze the Constitution by the Constitution itself. ALL public officials were supposed to ensure that they adhered to the limitations imposed by the Constitution. Legislators weren't supposed to pass whatever they wanted and wait to see what the Supreme Court would rule unconstitutional (as happened when the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act was passed...at least one legislator said that he did have concerns about its constitutionality, but PASSED IT ANYWAY.) In Marbury v. Madison, the Court seized the power to interpret the Constitution and essentially changed our government without any legislation even being passed! I encourage all to look into the details of this case. Its a big part of how we got to where we are now, when a handful of justices get to decide the very meaning of the founding documents of our country. Its quite disturbing.
I didn't say anything about trying harder. This is you putting words in my mouth.
I favor private charity over forcibly collected taxation to fund programs for the poor. I want to help the poor, but I'd rather not pay for the bureaucrats that come along with government programs. Very little of the money the government collects in taxation is dispensed to those who need it. Most gets lost in hopelessly large bureaucracies. There's a better way, and private charity is that better way.
Helvering v. Davis authorized Social Security under the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution, an argument which is thoroughly contradicted by the Jefferson quote I posted above, where he says that Congress has no authority to pass bills for the general welfare, but only those purposes SPECIFICALLY enumerated. Madison, the father of the Constitution, confirms this notion.
"With respect to the words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by it creators."
But of course, you're too busy with the cheating at cards DVD to discuss theft and property rights.
Aha, he throws the un-American card! Well you've already said I hate the poor without knowing anything about me or my contributions to society, so I suppose I shouldn't have expected anything else. I've given more of my personal time and money to helping those less fortunate than you could ever imagine, so I'll consider this un-American charge to be equally baseless (particularly since Thomas Jefferson's quotes lend credence to my preferred form of government).
Indeed, why bother. I give you facts, you give me rhetoric. I give you my analysis of the Constitution, you say the government is obviously approved by slews of Constitutional lawyers. Long on rhetoric, short on facts.
I just wish I could get a good answer to my question. Nobody has ever pointed to the passage in the Constitution that authorizes these things. Nobody even cares.
You may want to read up on some constitutional law. Our governmental structures themselves are all thoroughly constitutional. They've all been vetted by a myriad of constitutional lawyers. Everything is backed up in the Constitution and its amendments.
Fabulous. Perhaps you'd be able to tell me (with all of these myriads of constitutional lawyers to back you up) which part of the Constitution authorizes the Department of Education. Education is not mentioned in Article I, Section 8, and if we can't find it anywhere else, it will fall under the Tenth Amendment and the federal government will be prohibited from possessing it.
So where can I find the part of the Constitution that authorizes the Department of Education?
Slashdot Mirror
The best resource is still Google. You will need to be a little more patient and a little more competent with your search terms, however. Or you could just write in to Ask Slashdot.
I agree that Ron Paul is by far the best candidate for geeks. He's on Real Time with Bill Maher Tonight. Its on right now on HBO.
Nah, a ban seems fine. I have little doubt that he got to level 60 with the help of this keyboard. Its good to see a high level get knocked down for this.
Any dunderhead should realize that automating levelling of skills is and SHOULD BE against the rules of an MMORPG. He got what he deserved. He was also deceptive early in the correspondence, trying to convince them he was only using his macro keyboard to change armor sets. Whether weapon skills are important to a priest or not, he gained levels in those skills with this macroing. This also has very little, if anything, to do with WINE. I think that played no part in the expulsion.
Did i hear you right? Were you at one time amused by Bonzi Buddy?
(shudder}
Missing an H, article author.
Lousy.
A FREE webmail account when you sign up for 50 FREE HOURS!
1. Google goes public. 2. Things start to turn to shit. Is this the beginning of the end as demanding investors obsessed with profitability tear down everything that's great about Google?
The guns are ALREADY BANNED in these cities, and yet, there continues to be gunshots! Imagine, criminals don't obey the law!
Here are my comments regarding "So even if the Department of Education was constitutional--and it clearly is not--we should disband that agency because it is terribly inefficient."
That's kind of a scary thing to read, but consider this. That's only part of his plan. Perhaps with the completion of his whole plan, it could work, with people helping other people who can't afford school.
Its not so scary. How did we ever manage to educate our children before the 1970s when Carter established the Department of Education?
Please familiarize yourself with the Immunize feature of Spybot Search and Destroy. Its quite useful.
Err..Please excuse my typo. That was [b]PBS[/b] and C-SPAN.
The Cornell debate was broadcast on CBS and C-SPAN.
My conclusion: Allowing Badnarik into the debate would be a serious impairment to the Kerry campaign, and have little to no effect on the Bush campaign. The Kerry campaign would lose its one given opportunity to outline to the nation a major plank of its platform. The Bush campaign would neatly get to opt-out of a potentially embarrassing debate. This would be a disastrous result for Kerry's chances of winning and an extremely positive result for Bush's.
I fervently disagree with that assessment. Bush has put a blindfold on conservatives regarding his fiscal irresponsibility with the war. Imagine Badnarik calling him out on all of his social spending. No Child Left Behind, prescription drug benefit, proposing 3000 dollars for the unemployed...these things will not sit well with people who want their conservatives to control spending. Of course, Kerry will be undamaged by these criticisms. People expect liberals to spend on social programs. Besides, hearing more opinions is never a bad thing.
Unfortunately, this stunt just lowered my opinion of Badnarik pretty considerably.
Libertarians believe in the essential freedoms. This includes freedom to possess and protect property. So why did Michael violate that freedom? Did he own the land in question, or was it public property?
Judging from the charge of "trespass," I would say no to both.
The university is indeed a public university. Furthermore, you're making a presumption of guilt based merely on the fact that he was charged with the crime.
LWV has hosted these for years. They dropped it this year due to the total facade that this is.
Check your facts. LWV stopped hosting the debates in 1988 due to collusion between the two parties.
The libertarian party wouldn't be doing this if they were in the debate, even if all the other 'third' parties were excluded. That much seems self evident. Since that's likely the case, this means its less about what the two main parties are getting and more about what the libertarians are not getting. Which makes the whole thing bullshit from an ethical standpoint.
What brings you to this opinion? Speculation? Anyway, you're dead wrong. The LP qualified for federal matching funds in 2000 and sent the check back. That's how strongly libertarians believe in their ideals, and no Libertarian candidate would participate in a debate funded by public funds.
Then a few questions later he says that literacy in the US has declined dramatically since the nineteenth century. Wow. I wonder where he got that statistic.
Oddly enough, that comes from a study on literacy commissioned by Ted Kennedy.
808,
I think that the best way to balance the wishes of the majority with the rights of the minority is to clearly articulate those rights (as in the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments) and then limit government's power with those rights regardless of the wishes of the majority. Of course, if there is adequate super-majority support, the Constitution can be amended as needed. The beauty of the tenth amendment is that it allows each state to operate differently. California, for example, could have large welfare programs, a government that provides many services for its citizens, and is just generally quite large. Montana, on the other hand, can have a minimalist government, providing only the most basic services, like courts, roads, and municipal utility authorities.
As a result, each person can choose what sort of environment he wants to live in. If one person wants a big government that looks after him, he can live in California. If another person wants a small government that leaves him alone, he can move to Montana. Overarching all of this is a federal government that sticks to only the tasks that a federal government is the only reasonable option for, such as national defense and coining money (and all the other enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. Government, like e-mailed advertisements, should be mostly opt-in.
With expressly, there is a clear implication that any power which is not outlined in the constitution may not be wielded by the federal government. This is your interpretation of the amendment without "expressly", but that interpretation is regarded (by essentially everyone who studies law) as wrong. By refusing to include "expressly", the amendment simply states "that all is retained which has not been surrendered." This is trivially true. The Amendment was originally intended to be used the way you want to use it, but politics at the time intervened (because aparently, there were many people who disagreed) and the wording was changed to prevent it from being thus interpreted. Its teeth were taken, as it were.
Indeed, and the new interpretation makes it entirely irrelevant. With the new interpretation, what action could it possibly prohibit the federal government from doing? I do believe the Constitution to be a living document, but the "living" part should come in amending it as necessary, not altering the original meaning intended by the founders.
It surprises me that you would think that the Judicial branch of the United States government, which has the right and duty to interpret the United States constitution, would simply "be unaware" of the 10th Amendment.
It might interest you to know that the USSC was NOT granted exclusive authority to analyze the Constitution by the Constitution itself. ALL public officials were supposed to ensure that they adhered to the limitations imposed by the Constitution. Legislators weren't supposed to pass whatever they wanted and wait to see what the Supreme Court would rule unconstitutional (as happened when the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act was passed...at least one legislator said that he did have concerns about its constitutionality, but PASSED IT ANYWAY.) In Marbury v. Madison, the Court seized the power to interpret the Constitution and essentially changed our government without any legislation even being passed! I encourage all to look into the details of this case. Its a big part of how we got to where we are now, when a handful of justices get to decide the very meaning of the founding documents of our country. Its quite disturbing.
I didn't say anything about trying harder. This is you putting words in my mouth.
I favor private charity over forcibly collected taxation to fund programs for the poor. I want to help the poor, but I'd rather not pay for the bureaucrats that come along with government programs. Very little of the money the government collects in taxation is dispensed to those who need it. Most gets lost in hopelessly large bureaucracies. There's a better way, and private charity is that better way.
Helvering v. Davis authorized Social Security under the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution, an argument which is thoroughly contradicted by the Jefferson quote I posted above, where he says that Congress has no authority to pass bills for the general welfare, but only those purposes SPECIFICALLY enumerated. Madison, the father of the Constitution, confirms this notion.
"With respect to the words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by it creators."
But of course, you're too busy with the cheating at cards DVD to discuss theft and property rights.
Aha, he throws the un-American card! Well you've already said I hate the poor without knowing anything about me or my contributions to society, so I suppose I shouldn't have expected anything else. I've given more of my personal time and money to helping those less fortunate than you could ever imagine, so I'll consider this un-American charge to be equally baseless (particularly since Thomas Jefferson's quotes lend credence to my preferred form of government).
Indeed, why bother. I give you facts, you give me rhetoric. I give you my analysis of the Constitution, you say the government is obviously approved by slews of Constitutional lawyers. Long on rhetoric, short on facts.
I just wish I could get a good answer to my question. Nobody has ever pointed to the passage in the Constitution that authorizes these things. Nobody even cares.
You may want to read up on some constitutional law. Our governmental structures themselves are all thoroughly constitutional. They've all been vetted by a myriad of constitutional lawyers. Everything is backed up in the Constitution and its amendments.
Fabulous. Perhaps you'd be able to tell me (with all of these myriads of constitutional lawyers to back you up) which part of the Constitution authorizes the Department of Education. Education is not mentioned in Article I, Section 8, and if we can't find it anywhere else, it will fall under the Tenth Amendment and the federal government will be prohibited from possessing it.
So where can I find the part of the Constitution that authorizes the Department of Education?