The South Carolina state constitution requires that candidates for governor believe in God (it doesn't require Christianity or any specific religion). An atheist professor from the College of Charelston sued to try to get his name on the ballot back in the '90s, but I think he lost.
But if you don't like that type of culture...move. I did.
I believe in States' Rights, Nullification, and all those other crazy* Jeffersonian philosophies.
* Crazy to people raised in the post-Lincoln, centralized USA.
The national hero tortured and killed anybody who opposed Fidel.
Read any Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch report on Cuba. Many of their executions are of "criminals" but when self expression and questioning the government are crimes, lots of those executed criminals should be considered murder victims.
The government of one of the three poorest countries in the western hemisphere.
And what a PR coup, to be the exclusive software of one of the worlds most murderous, repressive regimes.
The US Constitution doesn't grant any rights.
The Founding Fathers considered it to be "self evident" that humans had basic rights to life, liberty, and property. The wording of the Constitution grants power to the US Government, not rights to the people. The Federal Government was given the power to suspend the universal right of Habeus Corpus under certain very specific conditions.
Sadly, very few Americans understand that's how the Constitution was written. And nobody in politics (except Congressman Ron Paul) seems to understand either.
Re:What is this doing in the Science area?
on
An Inconvenient Truth
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Only in America would that comment be labeled "Insightful".
Because only in America do we have people who question flawed evidence?
Give it up already... global warming is real.
Yes it is real, the question now is how much of an impact (if any) do humans have on it? All the Al Gores in the world back their claims of human impact with the "hockey stick" graph, which ignores the fact that in the middle ages, the Earth was significantly warmer than it is today. And that for the past few centuries we've been in a cool cycle, which we're now coming out of.
The debate is not over. The closed minded Gores of the world have just refused to listen to any evidence that challenges their claims. Now that's "science".
Fact is is not all environmentalists are anticapitalists, sure some are but not all.
That is correct. But I never said anything to the contrary. I said the true goal of the movement is anti-capitalism (i.e. socialism). And by that I don't mean that every person who sends money to Greenpeace or the Sierra Club is a card carrying communist. What I mean is the core people in the movement are socialists, and they're willing to manipulate their followers to achieve that goal. Patrick Moore (the co-founder of Greenpeace) left the organization, because they (like most of the movement) had lost their focus and were abandoning true environmental improvement for anti-capitalism.
Most people who support the environmental movement are people who think it would be nice for their grandchildren to know what a whale is, or not to have to change that age old question to "why is the sky brown?", views that any non-nihlist would share. They don't realize that the people at the core of the movement are not the friendly tree-huggers that they appear to be. Just like most people who send money to PETA don't realize that PETA wants to outlaw carnivorism and even wants to outlaw keeping pets.
We really hold the planet in spite; this is all about our agenda to turn the world into a UN-run communist authoritarian dictatorship where businessmen are hunted for sport.
Find one "environmental" group that doesn't support increasingly centralized government.
We hold the vast majority of the world's "scientists" in our sway with large payouts
Yes, I know, the system in question is the government grant system. If your research doesn't support the party line on the issue of the day, then you don't get funding. Thousands of scientists worldwide who doubt the hockey stick theory have been unable to get funding from their respective governments.
Worry not -- you shall not live to see the day. After we confiscate everyone's guns, the blue helmets will make sure that you who know the truth are the first against the wall.
So you're implying I'm a kook, because I don't want the world to be taken over by a world government? Most members of the UN are dictatorships where the rights to free speech, a free press, to own firearms, and a fair trial are unheard of. Most members are autocratic kleptocracies where the rulers live like kings (or literally are kings) at the expense of the people. And I'm a kook, because I don't want people like that being able to force policy on me? Apparently people who love freedom are a rare breed.
The idea of "less money for private health care" is pure comedy. Why would I want private healthcare?
Yeah, when has the free market ever reduced the price of something while increasing its quality? Computers? Cars? Cellphones? The internet? Those are all flukes.
And it would be really difficult to find examples of a government run program being wasteful and inefficient...oh wait...the parent article is about that exact subject.
Government run programs can never match private programs for quality/cost ratios. There is no initiative in the government sphere to improve quality and reduce costs. In the private sector there is: if you don't somebody else will, and he'll put you out of business. Entrepreneurship is an aspect of capitalism, not socialism. That's why the Soviets collapsed, Western Europe is collapsing (20% unemployment is good for the economy, right?) and the USA (which unfortunately has lots of socialism too) is on its way down. China (which is turning toward capitalism while the leadership tries to maintain autocracy) is one of the few growth economies on the planet.
I don't know why you would want private health care, but we educated people prefer it for choice, quality, and cost effectiveness.
The government healthcare system here in the UK is actually good, particularly if you happen to live in the South East. The idea of "less money for private health care" is pure comedy. Why would I want private healthcare?
Which is why anybody in the UK who can afford private health insurance has it...
Incidentally, isn't the UK the place where the wait for a dental appointment is so long, that people are now performing home dentistry?
Whether it's carbon dioxide or mercury, there will always be corporate warlords who have decreed that killing people is the price of progress, as long as they're not the ones to pay it.
I'm not sure who these corporate warlords are, but the government warlords of the 20th century managed to pollute far more of the world than every corporation combined. And no corporation can compete with Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and the other socialists when it comes to killing in the name of progress. Even the so-called "beacon of freedom" (the USA) killed thousands by dumping pollution, testing nukes, testing chemicals on US soldiers, etc.
It's terrible and sad if some peon gets cancer from living in the wrong place at the wrong time, but suggest that it's the company that should pay for the treatment and suddenly you're a barbaric anti-progress socialist that wants everyone to live in the stone age.
Holding a company accountable for its mistakes is a basic principle of capitalism (real capitalism, not the state-capitalism practiced in most of the "free world"). It's only under a system of corporatism (where the government wields massive power at the behest of, and to protect connected businesses), that the corporations can get away with that kind of irresponsible behavior.
Of course none of that has to do with the article above, but it was a decent attempt at a non-sequitur attack. I assume by "anti-environmental groups" you mean those who don't believe in the doomsday scenarios, those of us who understand that the Earth goes through warming and cooling periods due to solar, geological, and meteorological events out of our control, and that we mere humans are too insignificant to have that much of an effect on the Earth. Or perhaps you watched too much Captain Planet as a kid and you think there are groups out there that engage in wholesale planetary destruction for its own sake.
Of course the anti-capitalists (which is the true goal of the so-called environmental movement) would never present a low probability wild guess based on intentionally falsified data (such as the "hockey stick") as fact...oh wait...that's exactly what they did.
You should wonder what their real agenda is. I'll give you a clue: there's a reason that politicians and bureaucrats world wide, especially at the nascent world government, the UN, are "pro-environment": they want the power a green platform would give them.
I'm not even sure what the point is of this IT upgrade. What exactly do they need this system for? Doctors work fine with paper charts and files -- this is a ridiculous amount of money -- what is the benefit and how do the costs make the benefit still beneficial?
You must be some sort of freedom loving capitalist if you can't see the benefit here:
$24B in spending directed towards growing a government bureaucracy, and lucrative contracts for politically connected companies (does Halliburton have a UK division?).
People pay more in taxes to the health care system, so they have less money to pay for private health care, so they become more reliant on the government, which makes them less healthy (since government health care is horribly ineffective), which makes them even more reliant on the government, which means the government has to grow even more to 'serve' their health care needs. It's a win-win situation...except for the patients/taxpayers, but when was the last time anybody worried about them?
I have to applaud you. This is the most intelligent, rational post I have ever seen on/..
It's good to see there are some other believers in Austian economics here.
It's official.
If the platform doesn't say they favor giving the government a specific power then they oppose it. The Libertarian platform is written similarly to the US Constitution (all powers not expressly granted to the Feds are reserved for the states and the people).
-Opposes abortion
-Against gay marriage (this automatically should get him kicked out of the liberterian party IMO)
Those are his personal opinions. His political opinion is that neither of those issues is any of the federal government's business, which is a correct strict constructionist interpretation of the US Constitution.
He opposed the anti-gay marriage amendment crap a few years ago.
The way to prevent undesired behavior is to provide severe consequences. Prohibition does not work as a deterrence.
Besides, why punish somebody who can talk on the phone while driving when he hasn't caused harm to anyone? It's as stupid as telling me I have to drive 65mph in my Porsche, because an old lady in her '83 Lincoln is dangerous at 70mph.
Most traffic laws are stupid limit everybody to the abilities of the least competent style laws.
Motion Sensitive Nintendo Controllers (Take 2)
on
Wii-mote In Action
·
· Score: 1
I think if they're going to use a motion sensitive controller for the Wii, Nintendo should give us Power Glove owners a free Wii for trusting them the first time they promised a motion sensitive controller.
They're using voice over IP...on a phone line. Sure it's a digital data line, not a phone line per se, but it's almost ironc--VOIP on an analog modem, now that would be completely ironic (or is it moronic?).
Why do people want to use VOIP to emulate a phone, when the phone has a built in phone? And why would they want to use an IM service when the phone has it built in?
Sounds like somebody's prices aren't very competitive.
Every channel below 100 ("basic" cable and non-HD locals) is analog even with Cox's mislabeled "digital" service. They want to keep backwards compatibility with their analog subscribers, and don't want to spend the extra money to have separate digital channels for comedy central, cartoon network, etc.
In December 2003 I bought a 56" DLP HDTV. I plugged in my Cox digital cable, and the flaws of the analog signal (especially the ghosting) were so bad, I ordered dish network's HD package the next day. The picture and sound (even on the non-HD channels) are far superior. And the dish service with HD is cheaper than the digital service was with Cox!
I'll never* go back.
* Unless they provide a better service at a better price...which won't be any time soon.
Fortunately cable & phone monopolies are slowly going obsolete, because of competition from satellite, cell phones, phone over cable, tv over phone lines, etc.
Just goes to show what wonderful things the market can do, even when burdened by government backed monopolies.
Slashdot Mirror
Ten to one says he fast forwards his Tivo through commercial.
The South Carolina state constitution requires that candidates for governor believe in God (it doesn't require Christianity or any specific religion). An atheist professor from the College of Charelston sued to try to get his name on the ballot back in the '90s, but I think he lost.
But if you don't like that type of culture...move. I did.
I believe in States' Rights, Nullification, and all those other crazy* Jeffersonian philosophies.
* Crazy to people raised in the post-Lincoln, centralized USA.
Here's one:l losa-17eng.htm
http://www.lanuevacuba.com/archivo/alvaro-vargas-
The national hero tortured and killed anybody who opposed Fidel.
Read any Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch report on Cuba. Many of their executions are of "criminals" but when self expression and questioning the government are crimes, lots of those executed criminals should be considered murder victims.
The government of one of the three poorest countries in the western hemisphere.
And what a PR coup, to be the exclusive software of one of the worlds most murderous, repressive regimes.
He's probably just a front for Novell. ;)
What did SCO ever do to deserve this kind of treatment? Oh, yeah...that...
The US Constitution doesn't grant any rights.
The Founding Fathers considered it to be "self evident" that humans had basic rights to life, liberty, and property. The wording of the Constitution grants power to the US Government, not rights to the people. The Federal Government was given the power to suspend the universal right of Habeus Corpus under certain very specific conditions.
Sadly, very few Americans understand that's how the Constitution was written. And nobody in politics (except Congressman Ron Paul) seems to understand either.
Because only in America do we have people who question flawed evidence?
Yes it is real, the question now is how much of an impact (if any) do humans have on it? All the Al Gores in the world back their claims of human impact with the "hockey stick" graph, which ignores the fact that in the middle ages, the Earth was significantly warmer than it is today. And that for the past few centuries we've been in a cool cycle, which we're now coming out of.
The debate is not over. The closed minded Gores of the world have just refused to listen to any evidence that challenges their claims. Now that's "science".
That is correct. But I never said anything to the contrary. I said the true goal of the movement is anti-capitalism (i.e. socialism). And by that I don't mean that every person who sends money to Greenpeace or the Sierra Club is a card carrying communist. What I mean is the core people in the movement are socialists, and they're willing to manipulate their followers to achieve that goal. Patrick Moore (the co-founder of Greenpeace) left the organization, because they (like most of the movement) had lost their focus and were abandoning true environmental improvement for anti-capitalism.
Most people who support the environmental movement are people who think it would be nice for their grandchildren to know what a whale is, or not to have to change that age old question to "why is the sky brown?", views that any non-nihlist would share. They don't realize that the people at the core of the movement are not the friendly tree-huggers that they appear to be. Just like most people who send money to PETA don't realize that PETA wants to outlaw carnivorism and even wants to outlaw keeping pets.
Yes, I know, the system in question is the government grant system. If your research doesn't support the party line on the issue of the day, then you don't get funding. Thousands of scientists worldwide who doubt the hockey stick theory have been unable to get funding from their respective governments.
So you're implying I'm a kook, because I don't want the world to be taken over by a world government? Most members of the UN are dictatorships where the rights to free speech, a free press, to own firearms, and a fair trial are unheard of. Most members are autocratic kleptocracies where the rulers live like kings (or literally are kings) at the expense of the people. And I'm a kook, because I don't want people like that being able to force policy on me? Apparently people who love freedom are a rare breed.
And it would be really difficult to find examples of a government run program being wasteful and inefficient...oh wait...the parent article is about that exact subject.
Government run programs can never match private programs for quality/cost ratios. There is no initiative in the government sphere to improve quality and reduce costs. In the private sector there is: if you don't somebody else will, and he'll put you out of business. Entrepreneurship is an aspect of capitalism, not socialism. That's why the Soviets collapsed, Western Europe is collapsing (20% unemployment is good for the economy, right?) and the USA (which unfortunately has lots of socialism too) is on its way down. China (which is turning toward capitalism while the leadership tries to maintain autocracy) is one of the few growth economies on the planet.
I don't know why you would want private health care, but we educated people prefer it for choice, quality, and cost effectiveness.
Which is why anybody in the UK who can afford private health insurance has it...
Incidentally, isn't the UK the place where the wait for a dental appointment is so long, that people are now performing home dentistry?
Holding a company accountable for its mistakes is a basic principle of capitalism (real capitalism, not the state-capitalism practiced in most of the "free world"). It's only under a system of corporatism (where the government wields massive power at the behest of, and to protect connected businesses), that the corporations can get away with that kind of irresponsible behavior.
Of course none of that has to do with the article above, but it was a decent attempt at a non-sequitur attack. I assume by "anti-environmental groups" you mean those who don't believe in the doomsday scenarios, those of us who understand that the Earth goes through warming and cooling periods due to solar, geological, and meteorological events out of our control, and that we mere humans are too insignificant to have that much of an effect on the Earth. Or perhaps you watched too much Captain Planet as a kid and you think there are groups out there that engage in wholesale planetary destruction for its own sake.
Of course the anti-capitalists (which is the true goal of the so-called environmental movement) would never present a low probability wild guess based on intentionally falsified data (such as the "hockey stick") as fact...oh wait...that's exactly what they did.
You should wonder what their real agenda is. I'll give you a clue: there's a reason that politicians and bureaucrats world wide, especially at the nascent world government, the UN, are "pro-environment": they want the power a green platform would give them.
You must be some sort of freedom loving capitalist if you can't see the benefit here:
$24B in spending directed towards growing a government bureaucracy, and lucrative contracts for politically connected companies (does Halliburton have a UK division?).
People pay more in taxes to the health care system, so they have less money to pay for private health care, so they become more reliant on the government, which makes them less healthy (since government health care is horribly ineffective), which makes them even more reliant on the government, which means the government has to grow even more to 'serve' their health care needs. It's a win-win situation...except for the patients/taxpayers, but when was the last time anybody worried about them?
I have to applaud you. This is the most intelligent, rational post I have ever seen on /..
It's good to see there are some other believers in Austian economics here.
It's official.
If the platform doesn't say they favor giving the government a specific power then they oppose it. The Libertarian platform is written similarly to the US Constitution (all powers not expressly granted to the Feds are reserved for the states and the people).
He opposed the anti-gay marriage amendment crap a few years ago.
He's a retired doctor. He devoted his career to delivering babies, I doubt he kicks puppies (but I wouldn't be surprised if he's hunted before).
Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse?
Maybe one day Verizon will open kiosks in delivery rooms.
I hear Huggies has a new style with a pocket that will fit a cell phone or an iPod.
The way to prevent undesired behavior is to provide severe consequences. Prohibition does not work as a deterrence.
Besides, why punish somebody who can talk on the phone while driving when he hasn't caused harm to anyone? It's as stupid as telling me I have to drive 65mph in my Porsche, because an old lady in her '83 Lincoln is dangerous at 70mph.
Most traffic laws are stupid limit everybody to the abilities of the least competent style laws.
I think if they're going to use a motion sensitive controller for the Wii, Nintendo should give us Power Glove owners a free Wii for trusting them the first time they promised a motion sensitive controller.
Of course the easy answer to the question is that the egg came before the chicken, because sea animals were laying eggs before anybody had legs.
Why do people want to use VOIP to emulate a phone, when the phone has a built in phone? And why would they want to use an IM service when the phone has it built in?
Sounds like somebody's prices aren't very competitive.
In December 2003 I bought a 56" DLP HDTV. I plugged in my Cox digital cable, and the flaws of the analog signal (especially the ghosting) were so bad, I ordered dish network's HD package the next day. The picture and sound (even on the non-HD channels) are far superior. And the dish service with HD is cheaper than the digital service was with Cox!
I'll never* go back.
* Unless they provide a better service at a better price...which won't be any time soon.
That's logical, right?
Fortunately cable & phone monopolies are slowly going obsolete, because of competition from satellite, cell phones, phone over cable, tv over phone lines, etc.
Just goes to show what wonderful things the market can do, even when burdened by government backed monopolies.