The government shouldn't be making any energy decisions. The consumers should decide what they want, and when the right time to switch is. One thing the government should definitely do is not get into bed with leaders of other governments and corporations in order to provide energy to the citizens of the United States. Doing so is dangerous becuase the line between government and business is blurred, and when something goes wrong, the odds of prosecution and correction are slim to none. The U.S. government is -- even when not literally, then effectively -- immune to punitive and corrective legal action, so when they cause or allow major environmental and human rights disasters, they continue their operations unchecked. This is dangerous because the people these actions affect feel they have no power or recourse to find justice. This is how violent action and uprising begin.
We (the people; the citizens) should be 100% responsible for -- and therefore hold all the power of -- our decisions. Let the price of gas do what it will, and let the free market decide which fuel wins. If the desire for U.S. gold drives other countries to enslave their citizens, they really have nobody to blame but their own government. That's their fight. At one time we had cotton and tobacco industries that relied on slavery, and I'd argue that we are substantially and fundamentally better for having dealt with that on our own.
Graduated income tax brackets steal more of your money as you earn more. FairTax takes more of your money away as you spend more. In an environment where you spend what you earn, FairTax differs in implementation, but the results are the same.
In a fairly balanced economy (i.e. no welfare, social security, graduated income taxes or other caste-based benefits or detriments) that thrives off the free market, FairTax is against the grain; a flat tax is more appropriate.
I don't think a candidate for re-election would've stood a chance in committing what are, I'm starting to think, necessary atrocities. I'm thinking the war we've seen in iraq (thus far) has been nothing more than groundwork for a larger and startlingly brilliant campaign.
They are atrocities, but they aren't necessary. The assault on Iraq has caused the federal government to fail its chief job: protecting the rights and security of the citizens of the United States. On 2001-09-11, we were counter-attacked for the actions we have taken in the middle east over at least the last 50 years. Among the most egregious of these actions are the overthrow of the democratically-elected leader of Iran in 1953; and the continued support of Israel in their fight against Palestine. In my view it is wrong to interfere in the affairs of these other countries. The goal of establishing democracy in Iraq stands vis-a-vis to the basic desire for self-determination that led the founders of the U.S. to establish a democracy in the first place. That is, it's not a question of whether we value democracy; it is a question of whether we value self determination. Even though we helped Saddam, this cycle must be stopped, and the pleas to emotional response stand as circumvention of reason rather than emphasis applied to it.
Terrorists are born of the desperation and total disenfranchisement of a societal vacuum created by, for instance, a tyrannical government. When scorn metastasizes, it colors every interaction you make with your environment until it turns into violent predilections and eventually action. These actions are not misaligned; they always point at those they have directly experienced as being responsible. If your democratically-elected leader has been removed and replaced with a dictator, and you can identify the interloper, feelings of hatred and disenfranchisement cannot be denied. To this day the government of Iran bears a hatred for us, even going as far as joining in shouting "death to America" upon approval of laws that would further their nuclear weapons programs. That is the result of one action we took over half a century ago; the resentment burns even today, and if anything will calm it, it's certainly not the deja vu experienced when a geographically adjacent country is having its government altered by the same powers, especially when the instantiation of that power is an entirely different generation of people.
The humbling and terrible power that can be exerted by the United States also causes tremendous aggravation to existing resentment in the region. When that power is utilized in a very efficient manner, the fear and desperation only increase. There is no reason to believe that we will not be attacked again. These possible attacks will definitely be executed in an environment of increased desperation, and symbolic targets may be eschewed in favor of something more relatable and frankly deadly to the general population and government of the target country. For example, these hypothesized attacks may take the form of an explosion of mustard or sarin gas or the explosion of a nuclear weapon. The attacks on 2001-09-11 were, from the viewpoint of the attackers, collectively a counter-attack on those who would not only interfere in their affairs, but do so in a chronic, increasingly invasive and virulent manner that does not -- and indeed cannot -- respond or even listen to the pleas of the actual indigenous peoples (rather than just the reviled and farcical leaders of the nations in this region).
George Bush and John Kerry both extolled the virtues of the principal axioms, motives and reasons for the war in Iraq and the "war on terror." One major difference between them is their attitudes: while Bush initiated this war, probably as a result of the long-held desires of not only himself but also his administration and possibly his political party, Kerry supports it because he feels he must, or he won't win elected office. If either of these ma
You may be right. I looked around because I assumed their product's operation would be protected by something, but perhaps that falls under fair use or a warrantee tied to iTunes rather than the iPod.
If people buy restrictive music players and pay for music, they're effectively telling the company "we're okay with that." That is, if the record companies are able to garner substantial and increasing profits from online music stores which are supported by restrictive players, they will have the power and will have no reason to change their approach. It is possible that they will feel validated.
If you buy an iPod, you agree that you won't copy music from it. If the agreements don't state this, let me know. If you don't want to support such a player, skip the hype and make a reasoned decision.
Doesn't the iPod have an XML file specifying the location of particular songs as they relate to albums and artists? Clever use of sed should allow you to find the location of anything you want. Of course, you could easily write a script or a simple shell (ipsh?) to automatically map this information. Or you could just write a GUI program or possibly device driver. The latter option might not be feasible, but it would be neat.
I understand your concern, but I believe it is the responsibility of the woman whether to get pregnant or not in the first place. But yes, I believe that once she has made that choice, the rights of the child are established.
Re:Not all intelligent discourse needs to be civil
on
Pre-Election Discussion
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What a load of bullshit. You would have your mother carry to term the offspring of a rape, eh? Nice guy.
Why not? The baby didn't rape anyone; it's not Rosemary's Baby or something. She can always put it up for adoption. In the event of a rape, the responsibility for the child by default falls on the state or whichever social institution you choose, since society in a way failed you. Rape does not devalue the child; it's not your choice to make.
Conception -- fertilisation -- is well defined. Read a book and lay off the personal attacks.
I quoted that entire sentence because it's so ludicrous. Just who are you going to have as the arbiter, god?
I purposely said very little on the death penalty because I fundamentally agree with you. In cases where it is clear that someone has killed other people more than once, I could see an argument for the death penalty.
I'll just repeat what I said in another reply regarding abortion: to me, it's all logical: once conception takes place, birth is inevitable. So for me life begins at conception.
I know for sure that we need rid of Bush more than anything else
John Kerry is going to continue the war in Iraq and the intangible war on terrorism, which has no defined, achievable goal. The United States was attacked on 2001-09-11 because of our actions in the Middle East, and the aid we have given to Israel. Neither candidate has promised or even spoken about the real problems, and consequently neither have offered any real solutions; both candidates have only offered to "kill" (Bush, later Kerry) the "barbarians" (Kerry). Terrorists choose terror because they feel substantially disenfranchised, violated, or prejudiced against; not because their environment is set up to breed "evil" (Bush, Kerry). Our security and freedom weren't assaulted on 2001-09-11; we were counterattacked for having preponderance and using it in affairs that weren't our business.
You live in a town that is not much more than rubble. You finally participate in the election of a leader of your home country democratically. Then, the United States overthrows your government and installs a new leader who rules as a dictator for over two decades while continuing to receive weapons and aid from the United States. What do you do?
Re:Not all intelligent discourse needs to be civil
on
Pre-Election Discussion
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
There are no religious issues inherent to the debate over abortion rights. Abortion is the consideration of the rights of the unborn person versus the right of the parent over their body. If you were to ask me, as soon as conception occurs, the right of the parent over their body is separate from the rights of the child, and terminating that child is murder. If it can be reasonably determined that the life of the parent is put in danger by the life of the child, then aboriton is the decision of the parent. However, other problems and burdens that occur as a result of the pregnancy are responsibilities taken on upon pregnancy, and are not risks to be mitigated. The government should not be relied on as arbiter of responsibility.
Deadly corporeal punishment could be argued to be beneficial to society when the convicted has shown that they constitute a clear danger to others through their actions. "If there is one town that the world would be better without, it's Dogville." -- Lars von Trier
Marriage is not the business of the government; it is the business of citizens alone and as a law it is not only unnecessary, it is dangerous and alienating. It constitutes a violation of the right to privacy. Government-sanctioned marriage has also established an economy that, if it doesn't today, it certainly will require its participants to be married to be able to sustain their existence. Government-sponsored marriage drags the private lives of individuals into public spotlight unwillingly, and essentially crates a caste system whereby the existence of one individual is validated by the government, and the existence of another is not.
In the prevalent religions existing in the United States today, a person surrenders their ability to evaluate experience to a nebulous power which is in actuality just another person in a uniform. In a representative democracy, the desires of individuals are met in a confluence several times until they eventually turn into votes in Congress; hopefully, the government ends up being a compromise of what many people fervently believe is right. Religion and our government don't mix, and they shouldn't mix. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine knew this, and incidentally, they were deists.
The paradigm of "browsing" the web, ftp, mail, nntp, and webdav all from one application doesn't appeal to me. That is, I doubt I would use it. I can't see myself opening up another instance of what I was just using as a web browser, and then typing out an nntp address: they're totally different streams of thought, and I think that a change of interface (and application) is actually an important step the mind likes to take, since it is, after all, focused on a new imperative. Isn't that partially how we ended up with these different widgets? I wouldn't use a pencil to sign a birthday card, and likewise I wouldn't use a pen to sketch a diagram -- there's a change of importance, understanding and expectation there. I might be proven wrong when I try these new KDE features, but in general I think that sometimes praise is given to those who created technically impressive products that were not requested by the general public and don't really get used. The OSS community often doesn't have money, deadlines or requirements; just cool ideas. If these developers and designers can do some research and user testing, and identify focus in their products, then what they produce will be undeniably important, and will say even more about the discipline and the power of people than it gives to the desktop.
Don't be surprised if the kernel for Longhorn is written in C#. It follows Microsoft's pattern of making their creations intrinsic to the operating system (IE's rendering engine in Explorer; DRM features built into DirectX, which is -- or will be -- built into Windows), so that litigation either won't or can't force them to remove these features. Also, Microsoft wants their employees to become C# experts, so that when they leave MS, "C#" is displayed prominently and frequently on their resumes. Perhaps this is why Longhorn was delayed?
You'd think that someone who has come under so much fire for supposedly not caring about the opinions and ability of others would be more careful, but apparently not. That's my concern. I've been hoping for Bush to make me like him more, but he keeps doing really unwise and unintelligent things.
This change of permission is very literal, almost comical example of not caring what the rest of the world thinks, and siding with the interests of business.
Blaming this on the capabilities of the provider is not an excuse.
GTA:SA does not fall into the thoughtless exploitation of "the hood," which many people may have expected from a series that sports almost comical violence and detachment from reality. This lack of exploitation is in stark relief when played against the lyrics sung by Snoop about killing cops. Rather than experiencing a bunch of empty-headed black charicatures in a consequence-free environment spurting "ebonix," drinking 40s and shooting each other, there's a definite desperation in this game that you sympathize with immediately, to the point that you almost feel you know how Laurence Fishburne's character felt when he proclaimed that rich white men are infecting the hood with drugs in order to destroy its inhabitants. And the characters are complex, wallowing in the self-destruction that they're so desperate to destroy. And it's obvious the effects that their environment has on them. While GTA had you initially sickened with, and eventually lavishing violence, this game bound my emotions to every kill, every chase, and just about every action. When my mission was to kill a crack dealer in broad daylight, I really felt it; I really wanted him dead.
Slashdot Mirror
The government shouldn't be making any energy decisions. The consumers should decide what they want, and when the right time to switch is. One thing the government should definitely do is not get into bed with leaders of other governments and corporations in order to provide energy to the citizens of the United States. Doing so is dangerous becuase the line between government and business is blurred, and when something goes wrong, the odds of prosecution and correction are slim to none. The U.S. government is -- even when not literally, then effectively -- immune to punitive and corrective legal action, so when they cause or allow major environmental and human rights disasters, they continue their operations unchecked. This is dangerous because the people these actions affect feel they have no power or recourse to find justice. This is how violent action and uprising begin.
We (the people; the citizens) should be 100% responsible for -- and therefore hold all the power of -- our decisions. Let the price of gas do what it will, and let the free market decide which fuel wins. If the desire for U.S. gold drives other countries to enslave their citizens, they really have nobody to blame but their own government. That's their fight. At one time we had cotton and tobacco industries that relied on slavery, and I'd argue that we are substantially and fundamentally better for having dealt with that on our own.
Graduated income tax brackets steal more of your money as you earn more. FairTax takes more of your money away as you spend more. In an environment where you spend what you earn, FairTax differs in implementation, but the results are the same.
In a fairly balanced economy (i.e. no welfare, social security, graduated income taxes or other caste-based benefits or detriments) that thrives off the free market, FairTax is against the grain; a flat tax is more appropriate.
They are atrocities, but they aren't necessary. The assault on Iraq has caused the federal government to fail its chief job: protecting the rights and security of the citizens of the United States. On 2001-09-11, we were counter-attacked for the actions we have taken in the middle east over at least the last 50 years. Among the most egregious of these actions are the overthrow of the democratically-elected leader of Iran in 1953; and the continued support of Israel in their fight against Palestine. In my view it is wrong to interfere in the affairs of these other countries. The goal of establishing democracy in Iraq stands vis-a-vis to the basic desire for self-determination that led the founders of the U.S. to establish a democracy in the first place. That is, it's not a question of whether we value democracy; it is a question of whether we value self determination. Even though we helped Saddam, this cycle must be stopped, and the pleas to emotional response stand as circumvention of reason rather than emphasis applied to it.
Terrorists are born of the desperation and total disenfranchisement of a societal vacuum created by, for instance, a tyrannical government. When scorn metastasizes, it colors every interaction you make with your environment until it turns into violent predilections and eventually action. These actions are not misaligned; they always point at those they have directly experienced as being responsible. If your democratically-elected leader has been removed and replaced with a dictator, and you can identify the interloper, feelings of hatred and disenfranchisement cannot be denied. To this day the government of Iran bears a hatred for us, even going as far as joining in shouting "death to America" upon approval of laws that would further their nuclear weapons programs. That is the result of one action we took over half a century ago; the resentment burns even today, and if anything will calm it, it's certainly not the deja vu experienced when a geographically adjacent country is having its government altered by the same powers, especially when the instantiation of that power is an entirely different generation of people.
The humbling and terrible power that can be exerted by the United States also causes tremendous aggravation to existing resentment in the region. When that power is utilized in a very efficient manner, the fear and desperation only increase. There is no reason to believe that we will not be attacked again. These possible attacks will definitely be executed in an environment of increased desperation, and symbolic targets may be eschewed in favor of something more relatable and frankly deadly to the general population and government of the target country. For example, these hypothesized attacks may take the form of an explosion of mustard or sarin gas or the explosion of a nuclear weapon. The attacks on 2001-09-11 were, from the viewpoint of the attackers, collectively a counter-attack on those who would not only interfere in their affairs, but do so in a chronic, increasingly invasive and virulent manner that does not -- and indeed cannot -- respond or even listen to the pleas of the actual indigenous peoples (rather than just the reviled and farcical leaders of the nations in this region).
George Bush and John Kerry both extolled the virtues of the principal axioms, motives and reasons for the war in Iraq and the "war on terror." One major difference between them is their attitudes: while Bush initiated this war, probably as a result of the long-held desires of not only himself but also his administration and possibly his political party, Kerry supports it because he feels he must, or he won't win elected office. If either of these ma
No; you can run vi in emacs, if you don't pass out from exhaustion first.
You don't physically have to sign something to be bound by an agreement. If you think that's incorrect, you're just arguing semantics.
You may be right. I looked around because I assumed their product's operation would be protected by something, but perhaps that falls under fair use or a warrantee tied to iTunes rather than the iPod.
If people buy restrictive music players and pay for music, they're effectively telling the company "we're okay with that." That is, if the record companies are able to garner substantial and increasing profits from online music stores which are supported by restrictive players, they will have the power and will have no reason to change their approach. It is possible that they will feel validated.
If you buy an iPod, you agree that you won't copy music from it. If the agreements don't state this, let me know. If you don't want to support such a player, skip the hype and make a reasoned decision.
Doesn't the iPod have an XML file specifying the location of particular songs as they relate to albums and artists? Clever use of sed should allow you to find the location of anything you want. Of course, you could easily write a script or a simple shell (ipsh?) to automatically map this information. Or you could just write a GUI program or possibly device driver. The latter option might not be feasible, but it would be neat.
I understand your concern, but I believe it is the responsibility of the woman whether to get pregnant or not in the first place. But yes, I believe that once she has made that choice, the rights of the child are established.
'Cuz I do! The U.S. Census Bureau says that there was only maternal one death per 100,000 births in 2001.
I'd rather not trust you. Do you have any proof?
Conception -- fertilisation -- is well defined. Read a book and lay off the personal attacks. You.
I purposely said very little on the death penalty because I fundamentally agree with you. In cases where it is clear that someone has killed other people more than once, I could see an argument for the death penalty.
I'll just repeat what I said in another reply regarding abortion: to me, it's all logical: once conception takes place, birth is inevitable. So for me life begins at conception.
No religion can argue with logic. Discarding the playing cards of chance, once conception takes place, birth is inevitable.
You live in a town that is not much more than rubble. You finally participate in the election of a leader of your home country democratically. Then, the United States overthrows your government and installs a new leader who rules as a dictator for over two decades while continuing to receive weapons and aid from the United States. What do you do?
There are no religious issues inherent to the debate over abortion rights. Abortion is the consideration of the rights of the unborn person versus the right of the parent over their body. If you were to ask me, as soon as conception occurs, the right of the parent over their body is separate from the rights of the child, and terminating that child is murder. If it can be reasonably determined that the life of the parent is put in danger by the life of the child, then aboriton is the decision of the parent. However, other problems and burdens that occur as a result of the pregnancy are responsibilities taken on upon pregnancy, and are not risks to be mitigated. The government should not be relied on as arbiter of responsibility.
Deadly corporeal punishment could be argued to be beneficial to society when the convicted has shown that they constitute a clear danger to others through their actions. "If there is one town that the world would be better without, it's Dogville." -- Lars von Trier
Marriage is not the business of the government; it is the business of citizens alone and as a law it is not only unnecessary, it is dangerous and alienating. It constitutes a violation of the right to privacy. Government-sanctioned marriage has also established an economy that, if it doesn't today, it certainly will require its participants to be married to be able to sustain their existence. Government-sponsored marriage drags the private lives of individuals into public spotlight unwillingly, and essentially crates a caste system whereby the existence of one individual is validated by the government, and the existence of another is not.
In the prevalent religions existing in the United States today, a person surrenders their ability to evaluate experience to a nebulous power which is in actuality just another person in a uniform. In a representative democracy, the desires of individuals are met in a confluence several times until they eventually turn into votes in Congress; hopefully, the government ends up being a compromise of what many people fervently believe is right. Religion and our government don't mix, and they shouldn't mix. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine knew this, and incidentally, they were deists.
Are Slashdot stories normally not parsed for racism or what?
The paradigm of "browsing" the web, ftp, mail, nntp, and webdav all from one application doesn't appeal to me. That is, I doubt I would use it. I can't see myself opening up another instance of what I was just using as a web browser, and then typing out an nntp address: they're totally different streams of thought, and I think that a change of interface (and application) is actually an important step the mind likes to take, since it is, after all, focused on a new imperative. Isn't that partially how we ended up with these different widgets? I wouldn't use a pencil to sign a birthday card, and likewise I wouldn't use a pen to sketch a diagram -- there's a change of importance, understanding and expectation there. I might be proven wrong when I try these new KDE features, but in general I think that sometimes praise is given to those who created technically impressive products that were not requested by the general public and don't really get used. The OSS community often doesn't have money, deadlines or requirements; just cool ideas. If these developers and designers can do some research and user testing, and identify focus in their products, then what they produce will be undeniably important, and will say even more about the discipline and the power of people than it gives to the desktop.
Don't be surprised if the kernel for Longhorn is written in C#. It follows Microsoft's pattern of making their creations intrinsic to the operating system (IE's rendering engine in Explorer; DRM features built into DirectX, which is -- or will be -- built into Windows), so that litigation either won't or can't force them to remove these features. Also, Microsoft wants their employees to become C# experts, so that when they leave MS, "C#" is displayed prominently and frequently on their resumes. Perhaps this is why Longhorn was delayed?
Maybe you're onto something. chmod o-x americans?
You'd think that someone who has come under so much fire for supposedly not caring about the opinions and ability of others would be more careful, but apparently not. That's my concern. I've been hoping for Bush to make me like him more, but he keeps doing really unwise and unintelligent things.
This change of permission is very literal, almost comical example of not caring what the rest of the world thinks, and siding with the interests of business.
Blaming this on the capabilities of the provider is not an excuse.
GTA:SA does not fall into the thoughtless exploitation of "the hood," which many people may have expected from a series that sports almost comical violence and detachment from reality. This lack of exploitation is in stark relief when played against the lyrics sung by Snoop about killing cops. Rather than experiencing a bunch of empty-headed black charicatures in a consequence-free environment spurting "ebonix," drinking 40s and shooting each other, there's a definite desperation in this game that you sympathize with immediately, to the point that you almost feel you know how Laurence Fishburne's character felt when he proclaimed that rich white men are infecting the hood with drugs in order to destroy its inhabitants. And the characters are complex, wallowing in the self-destruction that they're so desperate to destroy. And it's obvious the effects that their environment has on them. While GTA had you initially sickened with, and eventually lavishing violence, this game bound my emotions to every kill, every chase, and just about every action. When my mission was to kill a crack dealer in broad daylight, I really felt it; I really wanted him dead.
How do you ruin a black iPod?
Answer: Make it look like a cat walking away.