Really, there's nothing "moderate" about the US government
It should be pretty obvious I was speaking about the moderates within a population, and how the US system gives them an increased. If the moderates are right of center... deal with it, that's what's called Democracy.
Basically, what your saying is: "I wish there were a system where someone who is really smart could decide who the sensible people are, and just let them make decisions"
(In the last election, the Green Party achieved this position, counting in at 4.2% in the election, and they got basically everything they wanted.)
Which is exactly why I like the US system so much, even though it is fashionable to pan it: Parlimentary systems increase the power of fringe minority groups. Under the US system, the moderates are more powerful, as they are swing voters and will be pandered too. This of course is 'not cool' to young radical types, but having a stable moderate government is quite desirable to everyone (except the indymedia types who want fast and radical change.)
The only way to remove the corporate-whore money culture from washington is to REMOVE ALL INDIVIDUAL FUNDING of Candidates
Wow, what a terrible idea. Like most attempts at regulating this, it won't change anything, just slightly alter the way its done. Under this system, expect to see ads like this:
"Hi, my name is so and so, I personally enjoy extolling the virtues of candidate X.....virtue virtue virtue.... if you enjoy hearing me speak, please give me money.
I think, however, it would be a good idea to clasify corporate campaign donations as 'commerical speech' since they have obvious commercial intents. Such speech can be regulated heavily.
Has anyone of you installed blue frog from bluesecurity? It takes the vigilante approach of "flodding the spammer's website". Any reviews?
Sounds like a great product. Previously, you used to have to install some malicious code on a bunch of PCs to conduct a DDOS attack. Now you'll only have to send a bunch of fake spams with the site as a click through. cool!
What kind of emergency would involve access to regular gas and not premium?
An entire city fleeing a hurricane at once. It happened in Houston. Now... I don't know which varieties of gas they ran out of first... but considering higher income individuals are more likely to drive out, and their cars are more likely to run on premium... it isn't a stretch of imagination.
And as for sticking to the point, your original post was a red heiring to begin with. The survey results aren't speculation: the vast majority of the service personnel surveyed stated that we invaded to retaliate for Saddam's involvement in the 9/11 attacks.
Correct, Although I do not see a source cited, I am taking these survey results as true, and, if you noticed not debating those results. I am debating your conclusion about why those results occured. It is a big difference, and it is why I was correct to say you were changing the subject when you went from "the soldiers don't know because of censorship" to "the soldiers don't know because no one wants to hurt their feelings".
Yet almost everyone back here knows that he had no involvement whatsoever with 9/11.
I will debate this. I have a sneaking suspician that it (sadly) isn't quite everyone, as you casually assume. I have a feeling (due to surveys I've seen) that this belief varies considerably with relation to: class, education, and political leanings. I have a feeling that most soldiers simply mirror the groups from which they come in terms of beliefs on 9/11.
How do you propose to explain this discrepancy?
Besides the point listed above, I will reiterrate that I believe the interpretation of "they" can also lead to that answer. It depends on who you consider "they" are that did 9/11. Some respondants might consider "they" to be the arab world, therefore being in Iraq is a valid response (similiar to how American flags were burned during the Danish cartoon protests). Again, it all goes back to the mindset of the responder, and how they interpret the response.
Please stay on point...
Your original post was about how this censorship might be being used to keep the troops over there in the dark, or mislead, about the true cause of 9/11, whereas the general US public is free to hear the truth.
I pointed out that those troops haven't been staying over there continuously, and have returned and mixed in with the general US population, and therefore been exposed to the same media, freedom, and information.
Your response: no one has told them, we're all keeping it a secret so we don't hurt their feelings?
sorry, that doesn't make logical sense, and wasn't the point you were trying to make in the original post.
No,
In these tests, the researchers gave a complex choice, made the people do math or anagram problems, then decide. The sleeping part was just an inference, but the research concluded allowing the non-active parts of your brain to work on something was beneficial (this is what I heard on NPR, as a supplement to the article)
Your logic fails because Jack the Ripper did not crimes that would have been committed anyway. Furthermore, he did not commit these crimes knowing his doing so caused someone else to not be able to do more serious damage.
In other words, if Google wasn't there, local search engines would be more complicate and corrupt.
Slashdot Mirror
It should be pretty obvious I was speaking about the moderates within a population, and how the US system gives them an increased. If the moderates are right of center... deal with it, that's what's called Democracy.
Basically, what your saying is: "I wish there were a system where someone who is really smart could decide who the sensible people are, and just let them make decisions"
It tends not to go too well when it happens though....
Which is exactly why I like the US system so much, even though it is fashionable to pan it: Parlimentary systems increase the power of fringe minority groups. Under the US system, the moderates are more powerful, as they are swing voters and will be pandered too. This of course is 'not cool' to young radical types, but having a stable moderate government is quite desirable to everyone (except the indymedia types who want fast and radical change.)
Even the article gets it wrong, it really is: "Google Buys China"
No.. we get campaign commercials by individuals, and people give tons of money to those individuals. This would probably be celebrities.
Wow, what a terrible idea. Like most attempts at regulating this, it won't change anything, just slightly alter the way its done. Under this system, expect to see ads like this:
"Hi, my name is so and so, I personally enjoy extolling the virtues of candidate X.....virtue virtue virtue.... if you enjoy hearing me speak, please give me money.
I think, however, it would be a good idea to clasify corporate campaign donations as 'commerical speech' since they have obvious commercial intents. Such speech can be regulated heavily.
1) Specialized knowledge
2) Limited Market
3) Wealthy consumers
I immagine Doctors have the same problem with their books.
Has anyone of you installed blue frog from bluesecurity? It takes the vigilante approach of "flodding the spammer's website". Any reviews?
Sounds like a great product. Previously, you used to have to install some malicious code on a bunch of PCs to conduct a DDOS attack. Now you'll only have to send a bunch of fake spams with the site as a click through. cool!
What kind of emergency would involve access to regular gas and not premium?
An entire city fleeing a hurricane at once. It happened in Houston. Now... I don't know which varieties of gas they ran out of first... but considering higher income individuals are more likely to drive out, and their cars are more likely to run on premium... it isn't a stretch of imagination.
Everyone, please ... repeat after me:
Options are never bad!
one more time...
Options are never bad
Just like I know I shouldn't put regular gas in a porche... I want the thing to run on it in case of an emergency.
Furthermore, Gates added:
"Also, let them eat cake"
This sums it up nicely, we'll know which it is only after the release
Bruce Feirstein:
The distance between insanity and genius is measured only by success.
The ipod (like this device) was an incremental improvement over other mp3 players from the time, not revolutionary.
You think that, because you are comparing technical features, and not experience.
animals or people, but in this case it is worth it to save many human lives.
There are many animal rights activits who would disagree with you..
most are young, heathly, and willing to sacrifice the old for their 'moral' quest.
And as for sticking to the point, your original post was a red heiring to begin with. The survey results aren't speculation: the vast majority of the service personnel surveyed stated that we invaded to retaliate for Saddam's involvement in the 9/11 attacks.
Correct, Although I do not see a source cited, I am taking these survey results as true, and, if you noticed not debating those results. I am debating your conclusion about why those results occured. It is a big difference, and it is why I was correct to say you were changing the subject when you went from "the soldiers don't know because of censorship" to "the soldiers don't know because no one wants to hurt their feelings".
Yet almost everyone back here knows that he had no involvement whatsoever with 9/11.
I will debate this. I have a sneaking suspician that it (sadly) isn't quite everyone, as you casually assume. I have a feeling (due to surveys I've seen) that this belief varies considerably with relation to: class, education, and political leanings. I have a feeling that most soldiers simply mirror the groups from which they come in terms of beliefs on 9/11.
How do you propose to explain this discrepancy?
Besides the point listed above, I will reiterrate that I believe the interpretation of "they" can also lead to that answer. It depends on who you consider "they" are that did 9/11. Some respondants might consider "they" to be the arab world, therefore being in Iraq is a valid response (similiar to how American flags were burned during the Danish cartoon protests). Again, it all goes back to the mindset of the responder, and how they interpret the response.
Do you realize how awkward it is to tell someone
Please stay on point...
Your original post was about how this censorship might be being used to keep the troops over there in the dark, or mislead, about the true cause of 9/11, whereas the general US public is free to hear the truth.
I pointed out that those troops haven't been staying over there continuously, and have returned and mixed in with the general US population, and therefore been exposed to the same media, freedom, and information.
Your response: no one has told them, we're all keeping it a secret so we don't hurt their feelings?
sorry, that doesn't make logical sense, and wasn't the point you were trying to make in the original post.
you realize... most of them have come back here since going over there, at least once.
Kinda shoots down your theory.
I'd focus more on what is meant by they
Sniff a few million packets full of ... financial data
But it will be in Canadian currency. That's no good.
Yeah, you'll have to sniff 1.13419964 million packets.
Another 'origins of life' story... Dupe
oh
that the computer viruses of today will lead to spur computers to life?
No, because computers are intelligently designed
Insightful?
Settle down everyone, and read this.
It is a feature when you upload a video to say who can and cannot watch a video, not "US Government Censorship"
No,
In these tests, the researchers gave a complex choice, made the people do math or anagram problems, then decide. The sleeping part was just an inference, but the research concluded allowing the non-active parts of your brain to work on something was beneficial (this is what I heard on NPR, as a supplement to the article)
Cayman Islands and trading in the NASDAQ
So instead of admitting your were proven incorrect, your new premise is that the mailing address and listing of a company determines its nationality?
I think the fact that many American and Brittish companies use that location for Tax shelter proves you incorrect.
Google provide a unique service, that cannot easily be replicated
Wrong
Over here, everyone may worship Google, but over there they are just another player.
Your logic fails because Jack the Ripper did not crimes that would have been committed anyway. Furthermore, he did not commit these crimes knowing his doing so caused someone else to not be able to do more serious damage.
In other words, if Google wasn't there, local search engines would be more complicate and corrupt.
Nice try at appeal to emotions though.