As far as democrats opposed to securing the borders, you can find several of them here. (Some Republicans on the list, too).
I don't think there are a lot of people that still consider Jimmy Carter representative of a concensus in the Democratic party, but I could be wrong. Whatever the reason, the idea that democrats are weak on national security is pervasive, and I don't think concentrating on distancing themselves from Carter's rantings is going to make much headway in changing that perception.
Wow. Nice job of validating my point, there. Third time: American voters see the GOP as being stronger on national security.
I see I did say "closing the borders", which I don't think anyone has proposed. I meant to say "securing the borders", that is, stopping the free-flow of illegal aliens back and forth, and mitigating the risks that jihadists intent on mass-murder of civilians are allowed into the country. Most people are in favor of that. Those that oppose it will not see much voter support.
[Republican's] foreign policy (or lack thereof) would have them booted out of office years ago.
Dude, you've got it backwards. The *only* reason the GOP is doing as well as they are is because of thier foreign policy (read: National Security). Dems are considered weak on national security, but more desirable on domestic policy. After 9/11, voters wanted stronger national security, so the Republicans did better, and they will continue to do so until the threat of terrorism goes away.
... or the perception thereof. The Dems are doing themselves no favor by downplaying the threats. Yea, Bush has royally screwed up Iraq, gone way overboard with the Patriot act, etc. (although the opposition was, well... weak), and now all the Dems can come up with is to keep banging the "NSA Spying" drum with "He's spying on Americans! He's spying on Americans! The sky is falling." Well, guess what? The middle doesn't care - they understand the limited nature of the program, and the vast majority don't even *make* international calls at all - it doesn't affect them.
There is a great opportunity now to capitalize on the uncertainty over Iraq and Iran - everyone is dissatisfied with Bush's strategies. But no one is certain what to do. It looks like a mistake to just pull out of Iraq and leave the disaster as it is - but the Dems aren't offering any other ideas!
I'll say this again: American voters *still* see the GOP as stronger on national security... and they see it as important right now (even though it is being totally mishandled). Do you think it's helping the cause for the Dems to oppose closing the borders?
You assume a fetus is the social equivalent of a person. You need to prove that fact before your anaology works. And do note that potential and acutality are quite different - status based on these qualities will naturally also be different.
Dude, you are *so* right. I've been saying for years that we need a *higher* standard for what constitues a "person". We can't make people or society slaves to care for undifferential potential people.
I'm thinking that fetuses need to survive *at least* 18 months outside the womb before given any kind of legal status - prior to that, throwing them in the dumpster should be perfectly OK!
I have never met a liberterian that didn't vote for a republican in every election.
You mean you've never met any of the liberterians that are voting for the Libertarian candidates? I guess you don't get out much. Then again, maybe none of them want to talk to you, seeing as you like to put everyone on your little left-right scale.
Liberterians are republicans who are too ashamed to say so.
Yep, there you go. I mean, how does that even mean anything? If someone identifies with a political party, they identify themselves with it, if not, they don't. Why would anyone do anything different. It's not like a gay person claiming to be hetersexual because of societal... oh... um...
Look, nevermind. I won't press you anymore on this.
The answer is *not* population control - it's habitat expansion, something that is only possible by advancing technology. I hear these arguments all the time - "Why are we spending billions on space exploration when there are people without enough to eat?". It's a specious argument, and I can't even beleive people would take it seriously.
We cannot halt progress while everyone catches up. I applaud efforts to reduce the "digital divide", and lessen poverty, and I support such causes myself. But while this work is important, we cannot neglect the future of our species.
The Earth will not sustain us forever, regardless of how long you think it can sustain us. So, living on earth is, itself, not sustainable in the long run. The only answer is developing better ways of manipulating our environment to suit us, and manipulating ourselves to deal with different environments. Trying to control our population only leads to less people to help find solutions, and we need all the diverse brain power we can get.
There has always been speculation about how many people the earth can sustain, but so far history has shown us that technology can keep ahead of population growth - we can now grow more food per acre than ever before. Yes, there are pockets of famine and drought - but these are issues that need better technological (and political) solutions than are currently being used.
If you decide to cut expenses and get rid of that monthly cable TV or XM radio bill, what do have for the money you paid?
Well, I don't know about XM, but (at least for now) I can record anything coming in on cable or broadcast tv out to VHS or DVD-R, and keep it essentially forever - the "subscription" doesn't lock down everything I watch, restrict how and where I can make copies or format-shift it, so that I can't watch it when I stop paying the bill.
I guess that type of thing is fine, if that's what you want - just a radio-type service where you listen to music on it until you stop paying - but that's not the way I listen to music. I like to have a collection of music that I can go back to and listen to whenever I want. I don't want to have to pay for it forever.
Although, considering the vast majority of music that the major distributors are putting out these days, using a model where you would listen to it a bit and then decide it's not worth keeping is probably the right way to go.
What happens when they decide to "stop carrying" certain songs? What if they decide a song has too much controversial content, and they will only support the revised version, and your old one is revoked? They can do that with the DRM they are requiring you to use.
Don't get me wrong - they should be able to offer such a service, and if you are happy with it, if it works for you, that's fine. They don't really make it clear what the restrictions are, though, do they? They are not really up front about it. Those Napster ads where they compare the costs of filling an MP3 player on Napster with the ones for filling an iPod on iTunes don't really spell out the details. I mean, what if they compared it to having an iPod for 10 years compared to 10 years of Napster?
I tried replicating last night, unfortunatly it was an asexual process.
I think what you were trying was not, in fact, an "asexual" process, which is defined as:
1. Having no evident sex or sex organs; sexless.
2. Relating to, produced by, or involving reproduction that occurs without the union of male and female gametes, as in binary fission or budding.
3. Lacking interest in or desire for sex.
I think what you were doing is referred to as "autosexual", or more commonly "autoerotic".
One side effect of Green Tea is that it helps to flush out you system.
That's good - because he'll need it with all the chemical/herbal supplements he's taking. I wonder how often he gets a liver function test, and what those numbers might look like.
Call IBM, Northrup-Grumman, and CGI-AMS, and start talking. Maybe if IT thinks they might get replaced, they may be willing to listen to what you want.
The outsource service salesmen will definately listen, but whether you get what they promise is another story.
The most informative post in this whole thread, and it remains unmoderated. Further proof that most moderation on/. is done based on ideology, not objective review of relavance.
Most people killed by gunfire (in the U.S.) are done so in domestic disputes. It is a fact: You are more likely to get shot by someone you know than by a burglar/thief/other criminal.
Still no statistics yet, though, on the number of criminal acts foiled by an armed citizen with a gun. You usually don't have to kill the burglar/rapist/whatever - you just need to get his attention at the end of a barrel.
In the mean time, please brush up on your argument skills before railing about the terrible companies that "take away what [I] aready have when [I] stop paying," when that misrepresents the nature of the service and how they treat me.
I haven't tried any of the subscription music services, I rarely buy music at all and when I do, it's something not normally available on the mass market channels. However, I'm curious about your statement. How exactly did the grandparent "misrepresent" the nature of music subscription service? If you decide to cut expenses and get rid of that monthly subscription service bill, what do you have for the money you've paid?
That's the right of a capitalist democracy; if you can't do that, what's the point in even having a government.
Exactly. I much prefer a government in fear of their citizens - you get more of this kind of action that way.
I was not around (or at least aware of goings-on) when AT&T was split up, but seeing all the traitorous crap the ILEC's are are doing these days, it looks like it's high time to put the screws to them again.
If you want "Common Carrier" rules to apply to Comcast, you'd better write your congress critter (and inclose a fat check if you want him to actually pay attention). The FCC has ruled that Comcast (and most other "broadband" providers) are actually "Information services", and are not bound by Common Carrier rules.
Personally, I like how the major parties filter out the lunatics.
Unfortunately, it also filters out voices of reason when it disagrees with both parties. There are a LOT of issues that the 2 parties agree on 99% of the time that are nevertheless wrong-headed and disagree with the opinions of most of their constituents. It means these issues are simply never discussed.
Yea, that would be nice, because iTunes is one of the 2 things I still use Windows for, and it would be nice to sync my iPod in Linux. Alas, this Songbird thing won't even sync with the iPod in Windows, so I don't know what good it is.
Frankly, iTunes isn't really such a great music player anyway - even for those rare occasions I want to listen to music on the PC. Xmms is a perfectly capable music player, although I usually use Totem these days. Although, again listening to music on the PC just isn't something I do much of. I have iTunes to maintain my iPod music, and it's the best thing for that - nothing else comes close.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think there are a lot of people that still consider Jimmy Carter representative of a concensus in the Democratic party, but I could be wrong. Whatever the reason, the idea that democrats are weak on national security is pervasive, and I don't think concentrating on distancing themselves from Carter's rantings is going to make much headway in changing that perception.
Here's some further reading for you to consider:
I see I did say "closing the borders", which I don't think anyone has proposed. I meant to say "securing the borders", that is, stopping the free-flow of illegal aliens back and forth, and mitigating the risks that jihadists intent on mass-murder of civilians are allowed into the country. Most people are in favor of that. Those that oppose it will not see much voter support.
Dude, you've got it backwards. The *only* reason the GOP is doing as well as they are is because of thier foreign policy (read: National Security). Dems are considered weak on national security, but more desirable on domestic policy. After 9/11, voters wanted stronger national security, so the Republicans did better, and they will continue to do so until the threat of terrorism goes away.
There is a great opportunity now to capitalize on the uncertainty over Iraq and Iran - everyone is dissatisfied with Bush's strategies. But no one is certain what to do. It looks like a mistake to just pull out of Iraq and leave the disaster as it is - but the Dems aren't offering any other ideas!
I'll say this again: American voters *still* see the GOP as stronger on national security... and they see it as important right now (even though it is being totally mishandled). Do you think it's helping the cause for the Dems to oppose closing the borders?
Dude, you are *so* right. I've been saying for years that we need a *higher* standard for what constitues a "person". We can't make people or society slaves to care for undifferential potential people.
I'm thinking that fetuses need to survive *at least* 18 months outside the womb before given any kind of legal status - prior to that, throwing them in the dumpster should be perfectly OK!
You mean you've never met any of the liberterians that are voting for the Libertarian candidates? I guess you don't get out much. Then again, maybe none of them want to talk to you, seeing as you like to put everyone on your little left-right scale.
Liberterians are republicans who are too ashamed to say so.
Yep, there you go. I mean, how does that even mean anything? If someone identifies with a political party, they identify themselves with it, if not, they don't. Why would anyone do anything different. It's not like a gay person claiming to be hetersexual because of societal... oh... um...
Look, nevermind. I won't press you anymore on this.
I see you have chosen to skip English class.
What do I gain (or lose) using the extension instead of the Sunbird client?
The answer is *not* population control - it's habitat expansion, something that is only possible by advancing technology. I hear these arguments all the time - "Why are we spending billions on space exploration when there are people without enough to eat?". It's a specious argument, and I can't even beleive people would take it seriously.
We cannot halt progress while everyone catches up. I applaud efforts to reduce the "digital divide", and lessen poverty, and I support such causes myself. But while this work is important, we cannot neglect the future of our species.
The Earth will not sustain us forever, regardless of how long you think it can sustain us. So, living on earth is, itself, not sustainable in the long run. The only answer is developing better ways of manipulating our environment to suit us, and manipulating ourselves to deal with different environments. Trying to control our population only leads to less people to help find solutions, and we need all the diverse brain power we can get.
There has always been speculation about how many people the earth can sustain, but so far history has shown us that technology can keep ahead of population growth - we can now grow more food per acre than ever before. Yes, there are pockets of famine and drought - but these are issues that need better technological (and political) solutions than are currently being used.
Well, I don't know about XM, but (at least for now) I can record anything coming in on cable or broadcast tv out to VHS or DVD-R, and keep it essentially forever - the "subscription" doesn't lock down everything I watch, restrict how and where I can make copies or format-shift it, so that I can't watch it when I stop paying the bill.
I guess that type of thing is fine, if that's what you want - just a radio-type service where you listen to music on it until you stop paying - but that's not the way I listen to music. I like to have a collection of music that I can go back to and listen to whenever I want. I don't want to have to pay for it forever.
Although, considering the vast majority of music that the major distributors are putting out these days, using a model where you would listen to it a bit and then decide it's not worth keeping is probably the right way to go.
What happens when they decide to "stop carrying" certain songs? What if they decide a song has too much controversial content, and they will only support the revised version, and your old one is revoked? They can do that with the DRM they are requiring you to use.
Don't get me wrong - they should be able to offer such a service, and if you are happy with it, if it works for you, that's fine. They don't really make it clear what the restrictions are, though, do they? They are not really up front about it. Those Napster ads where they compare the costs of filling an MP3 player on Napster with the ones for filling an iPod on iTunes don't really spell out the details. I mean, what if they compared it to having an iPod for 10 years compared to 10 years of Napster?
I think what you were trying was not, in fact, an "asexual" process, which is defined as: 1. Having no evident sex or sex organs; sexless. 2. Relating to, produced by, or involving reproduction that occurs without the union of male and female gametes, as in binary fission or budding. 3. Lacking interest in or desire for sex.
I think what you were doing is referred to as "autosexual", or more commonly "autoerotic".
Don't worry, though - I would never release nanobot assemblers without replication limiting code.
That's good - because he'll need it with all the chemical/herbal supplements he's taking. I wonder how often he gets a liver function test, and what those numbers might look like.
The outsource service salesmen will definately listen, but whether you get what they promise is another story.
Well, here's a link to a short video: http://www.cnn.com/resources/video.almanac/1980/lo ve.canal/love.canal.3.29.lg.wten.mov
couldn't find anything else other than short mentions of the incident, though.
The most informative post in this whole thread, and it remains unmoderated. Further proof that most moderation on /. is done based on ideology, not objective review of relavance.
Why? Because the burglars weren't stupid.
Only, apparently, when compared to you.
Still no statistics yet, though, on the number of criminal acts foiled by an armed citizen with a gun. You usually don't have to kill the burglar/rapist/whatever - you just need to get his attention at the end of a barrel.
I haven't tried any of the subscription music services, I rarely buy music at all and when I do, it's something not normally available on the mass market channels. However, I'm curious about your statement. How exactly did the grandparent "misrepresent" the nature of music subscription service? If you decide to cut expenses and get rid of that monthly subscription service bill, what do you have for the money you've paid?
Indeed. That old party is so irrelevant and swept into the dustbin of history that people don't even remember how to spell Whigs.
That's the right of a capitalist democracy; if you can't do that, what's the point in even having a government.
Exactly. I much prefer a government in fear of their citizens - you get more of this kind of action that way.
I was not around (or at least aware of goings-on) when AT&T was split up, but seeing all the traitorous crap the ILEC's are are doing these days, it looks like it's high time to put the screws to them again.
If you want "Common Carrier" rules to apply to Comcast, you'd better write your congress critter (and inclose a fat check if you want him to actually pay attention). The FCC has ruled that Comcast (and most other "broadband" providers) are actually "Information services", and are not bound by Common Carrier rules.
You're kidding right? Don't you know how these types of class-actions work?
Pay attention this time. On, say, a $200 million settlement, it would go more like this:
You're wrong about the beer.
Unfortunately, it also filters out voices of reason when it disagrees with both parties. There are a LOT of issues that the 2 parties agree on 99% of the time that are nevertheless wrong-headed and disagree with the opinions of most of their constituents. It means these issues are simply never discussed.
Yea, that would be nice, because iTunes is one of the 2 things I still use Windows for, and it would be nice to sync my iPod in Linux. Alas, this Songbird thing won't even sync with the iPod in Windows, so I don't know what good it is.
Frankly, iTunes isn't really such a great music player anyway - even for those rare occasions I want to listen to music on the PC. Xmms is a perfectly capable music player, although I usually use Totem these days. Although, again listening to music on the PC just isn't something I do much of. I have iTunes to maintain my iPod music, and it's the best thing for that - nothing else comes close.
What's the point of this thing?