I think they will have to add a "lobbyist payment recovery fee" also. Oh, wait, maybe a "Congessional lunch, dinner, and greens fee recovery fee". Wait, oh, nevermind.
Once again, The good doctor boils to down to the brass tacks. Who is this Doc Ruby? He just has this way of explaining complex issues in an easy to grasp manner. Can I fit in anymore accolades and cool idioms?
Gushfest mode off.
I know some have called you a dumbass, but damnit, you have this excellent manner of calling bullshit. Sure you can be abrasive sometimes, but nobody's perfect.
Yes, mod this up.
Disclaimer: I hate the phone company. And the cable company too...
I can't believe I got modded insightful. I was trying to do a play on the "less space than a nomad" bit. I was going for the +funny. I can understand if someone didn't find humor in my lame joke (no pun intended, the joke was lame). I fully expected the troll and redundant mods.
antdude, I wasn't trying to offend anybody. At least got a submission on the frontpage.
"It has been shown that subject X lied in the past. How can we believe him today when he says he has nothing to do with conspiracy against the government?"
I don't believe that lying in general isn't illegal. I could just as easily admit to doing illegal things, but the burden of proof is on them (the state) to prove that I did illegal things.
That's how things are today. How can you be sure they will stay that way in the face of your government eroding your rights right under your ignorant nose? Your faith in the unshakable legal system is astounding, given that Adolf W. Bush already chose to ignore parts of it.
I wouldn't call it faith, trust me, I'm paranoid about it. I don't post info that I feel could be used against me. I have discussed illegal things I have done, but this is after I've gotten caught, not before. At that point it is already in the government's records.
I was just trying to point out that there is a lot of deliberate BS on the social networking sites. If some one is stupid enough to discuss at length their illegal activity, well, I'd say that is stupid.
And trust me, I don't have unshakable faith in damn near anything. I am disturbed by this, but if the NSA/CIA/FBI is going to try to credibily use data from myspace there will be a lot of garbage in/garbage out. Short of them sending out deathsquads to go after undesireables, they cannot use the legal framework as it is now to do wholesale persecution of people for BS they post online. I won't say it can't happen, but if it starts getting that bad, I'm out of here.
How do they know your weren't lying about it. I can make up anything and just say that I'm trying to be interesting/boasting/developing a plot for a novel/movie/whatever. As long as your intent isn't to defraud someone, I don't believe that lying in general isn't illegal. I could just as easily admit to doing illegal things, but the burden of proof is on them (the state) to prove that I did illegal things. Like say that I smoke crack. Unless they can get proof that I actually smoked crack, they have nothing. Unless they repeal the 5th amendment. There has to be a chain of possession on evidence. Video can't prove much, it has to be under certain circumstances for it to be legitimate evidence. Usually the legal system also has to be able to pin down a date when said offence occured. I believe that posting things to the internet would be considered worthless evidence in most cases.
Because for years I had no long distance providers. I don't have any old phone bills to look at, because I have gone VoIP. I couldn't make long distance calls on my phone, when I had one. I set it up that way, so I'd have a predictable phone bill. I used calling cards. Are those taxed? I thought that I was taxed just for having phone service. Then again, they had so many fees and other taxes I could just be confused. Yet another reason to cut the cord to the baby bells.
Or does a picture of a snake eating its tail come to mind?
Here is a choice quote:
"...Because XM makes available vast catalogues of music in every genre, XM subscribers will have little need ever again to buy legitimate copies of plaintiffs' sound recordings,"
And how do you feel about all the innocent people the US has killed in Iraq? I mean, what are realistic yields for a terrorist nuke? Are they able to field a hydrogen bomb? I mean, why start small. What is the mechanism for a plausible attack via nukes? I don't mean to be callous and sound like a bean counter, but what are the cost/benefits of ruining the Bill of Rights for some hypothetical nuclear terrorist attack? I would rather risk the loss of an order of magnitude more than was lost on September 11 before I starting shredding the Constitution. 3000 people dead is nothing in a country of 300 million. Yes, it was frightening, but lets get a grip.
This building had 4 floors added to it illegally. It ends with this quote:
Building collapses are common in Egypt and are often caused by shoddy construction or the unauthorized building of extra stories. The last such incident was May 4, when a seven-story apartment building collapsed in Cairo, killing at least seven people.
I call bullshit on the "people standing at the impact site". Do you have a link to pictures to back that up? I remember watching TV and seeing a whole lot of smoke coming out of both buildings, indicating a fire or massive deployment of smoke machines by the illuminati.
Now let me also say that I don't construe this as hard evidence. Prisonplanet has video (I haven't watched the video). Forrest Gump shook hands with Kennedy. I'm being skeptical, but this looks legit. So here are your photos and video. Debunk it at your pleasure.
polls smolls. Here is my short rant on polls. They are very flawed. Telephone polls especially. Those without landlines don't get polled. They need to start sending people door to door in various regions. This will be flawed too, but I believe that telephone polls are getting more and more skewed. Of course, the president's rating has tanked, according to polls, so maybe they are on to something. I don't know. Anyone here have expertise with polling? What is the non-response error for a typical telephone poll? A face to face poll? A mail poll? Shouldn't those who poll use combination of all three (or more techniques)?
My guess, is that like everything else, cost cutting is preventing accurate polling. It costs money to poll. I'm sure that telephone polls are the cheapest. Maybe they can just make a magic 8 ball with poll numbers in it.
Great. We are at the apathy and dependency stage now. I got to go thru bondage, spiritual faith, and great courage, just to get the liberty I'm looking for? Is this some sort of tootsie roll pop? A lot of licking to get to that nice center of liberty. That sounds like hard work.
I think you are splitting hairs. Diesel is the engine. Whatever it burns is now diesel fuel. "diesel fuel" as we know it, is only called that because they burn it in diesels. I believe the term biodiesel can be used for any fuel which is made from carbon neutral sources, and is burned in a diesel. The conversion you mention is to reduce the viscosity of vegetable oil, so it will run through an injection system of an engine designed to run on traditional fossil diesel fuel. I don't see why someone couldn't design a diesel injection system which will run on a wide range of fuel viscosities. Kerosene also burns well in diesels, but some injector pumps won't like it, and wear out quicker. Large diesels on ships run on a less refined fuel, called bunker-c.
It may be time to start using more descriptive terminology for diesel fuels. Technically, they are all fuel oils.
The US can not have a multi-party system because our electoral system punishes any political party that is not one of the big two.
People seem to think that the reason we have a two-party system is because the Republicans and Democrats actively lock out third parties. That is only partially true. They do discourage other parties. But the real problem is that each governmental seat is determined by an individual election, and there is no prize for second place. As such, the American voter has to make every vote count by voting for the most palatable canidate who actually has a shot at winning. That means always voting for either the Republican or the Democrat. A vote for a third party canidate is a wasted vote. And because every office down to local officials is elected in the same way, small parties can barely even get a foothold in local government. The last time a third party rose to prominence (the Republicans) another party fell apart (the Whigs). In order to sustain a multi party system, our election system would have to reward the second, third, fourth, fifth, (etc.) place winners. Our Constitution does not provide the structure for that. If, by some miracle, both parties dissolved tomorrow, another two-party system wold evolve and took remarkably similar to what we have now
Ok, help me here, I serious, I'm not a history major, and I went to a public school.
I believe a Approval voting or Rank voting could allow other parties, if you gave "second place" to vice and lieutenant [president/governor] positions. I mean, hey the present system orinally had Vice President go to the guy who got the second amount of the electorial vote, correct?
Overall, the mutated system that we have has worked pretty well the past ~200 years or so, right? Time to get some amendments going.
I'm not trying to be a smart ass or anything. I just am tired of the current system.
Do you think the two party system is an ideal solution to goverment?
It seems to me that in the media, which needs its own house cleaned as well, can always boil any thing down to Republican/Democrat, pro life/pro choice, one issue/second issue, pro war/anti war. I mean, the war is happening now, I'd assume that people would like it to end at some point right? Sorry, I'm getting off topic.
I just feel that there is some way to have a multiparty system. Maybe we need rotating presidents. And the whole thing is really tainted with money. Money, Money, Money. Where does most of it go anyway? Advertising? Holding dinners and events? Paying friends to work for you? Where does it all go? Hookers and limos from dirty lobbists?
But you don't understand. If there was no Democratic party, the Republican party would have need to invent them. They are two sides of the same coin. I also love it when people talk about third parties. We don't need third parties, we need third, forth, fifth and sixth parties. The more the better. The Democrats and Republicans are just playing us with the good cop/bad cop routine. They are still not on the average joe's side. They are out there for the moneyed interests. The two party system is just that, a system. A method of aggregating power while at the same time giving the illusion of checks and balances. They make everthing a false dichotomy. Society is too complex for a two party system.
So: CALL OR WRITE THAT PERSON WHO YOU VOTED FOR, AND ARE PAYING TO REPRESENT YOU. IT WORKS SOMETIMES.
I agree with most of what you said, but it is no good for me to call or write the person I voted for, they lost. So, you shouldn't call or write the person who you voted for, but the person who won the election and therefore represents you. I'm sure this is what you meant, I just thought it was funny, because I seem to be on the losing side all too often.
Slashdot Mirror
I think they will have to add a "lobbyist payment recovery fee" also. Oh, wait, maybe a "Congessional lunch, dinner, and greens fee recovery fee". Wait, oh, nevermind.
Cha-Ching Cha-Ching, Money, it's a drag...
Gushfest mode on:
Once again, The good doctor boils to down to the brass tacks. Who is this Doc Ruby? He just has this way of explaining complex issues in an easy to grasp manner. Can I fit in anymore accolades and cool idioms?
Gushfest mode off.
I know some have called you a dumbass, but damnit, you have this excellent manner of calling bullshit. Sure you can be abrasive sometimes, but nobody's perfect.
Yes, mod this up.
Disclaimer: I hate the phone company. And the cable company too...
And I guess there are Christians out there who are turned off by the word "Science" in the title/name.
I can't believe I got modded insightful. I was trying to do a play on the "less space than a nomad" bit. I was going for the +funny. I can understand if someone didn't find humor in my lame joke (no pun intended, the joke was lame). I fully expected the troll and redundant mods.
antdude, I wasn't trying to offend anybody. At least got a submission on the frontpage.
Less info than a normal Slashdot summary, lame article, lame in general. What the hell is with the compfused link?
How do they know your weren't lying about it.
"It has been shown that subject X lied in the past. How can we believe him today when he says he has nothing to do with conspiracy against the government?"
I don't believe that lying in general isn't illegal. I could just as easily admit to doing illegal things, but the burden of proof is on them (the state) to prove that I did illegal things.
That's how things are today. How can you be sure they will stay that way in the face of your government eroding your rights right under your ignorant nose? Your faith in the unshakable legal system is astounding, given that Adolf W. Bush already chose to ignore parts of it.
I wouldn't call it faith, trust me, I'm paranoid about it. I don't post info that I feel could be used against me. I have discussed illegal things I have done, but this is after I've gotten caught, not before. At that point it is already in the government's records.
I was just trying to point out that there is a lot of deliberate BS on the social networking sites. If some one is stupid enough to discuss at length their illegal activity, well, I'd say that is stupid.
And trust me, I don't have unshakable faith in damn near anything. I am disturbed by this, but if the NSA/CIA/FBI is going to try to credibily use data from myspace there will be a lot of garbage in/garbage out. Short of them sending out deathsquads to go after undesireables, they cannot use the legal framework as it is now to do wholesale persecution of people for BS they post online. I won't say it can't happen, but if it starts getting that bad, I'm out of here.
How do they know your weren't lying about it. I can make up anything and just say that I'm trying to be interesting/boasting/developing a plot for a novel/movie/whatever. As long as your intent isn't to defraud someone, I don't believe that lying in general isn't illegal. I could just as easily admit to doing illegal things, but the burden of proof is on them (the state) to prove that I did illegal things. Like say that I smoke crack. Unless they can get proof that I actually smoked crack, they have nothing. Unless they repeal the 5th amendment. There has to be a chain of possession on evidence. Video can't prove much, it has to be under certain circumstances for it to be legitimate evidence. Usually the legal system also has to be able to pin down a date when said offence occured. I believe that posting things to the internet would be considered worthless evidence in most cases.
I believe Sony beat you to it.
Because for years I had no long distance providers. I don't have any old phone bills to look at, because I have gone VoIP. I couldn't make long distance calls on my phone, when I had one. I set it up that way, so I'd have a predictable phone bill. I used calling cards. Are those taxed? I thought that I was taxed just for having phone service. Then again, they had so many fees and other taxes I could just be confused. Yet another reason to cut the cord to the baby bells.
Or does a picture of a snake eating its tail come to mind?
Here is a choice quote:
"...Because XM makes available vast catalogues of music in every genre, XM subscribers will have little need ever again to buy legitimate copies of plaintiffs' sound recordings,"
You insensitive clod!
Sorry, no offense intended. I'll have to watch my grammar.
And how do you feel about all the innocent people the US has killed in Iraq? I mean, what are realistic yields for a terrorist nuke? Are they able to field a hydrogen bomb? I mean, why start small. What is the mechanism for a plausible attack via nukes? I don't mean to be callous and sound like a bean counter, but what are the cost/benefits of ruining the Bill of Rights for some hypothetical nuclear terrorist attack? I would rather risk the loss of an order of magnitude more than was lost on September 11 before I starting shredding the Constitution. 3000 people dead is nothing in a country of 300 million. Yes, it was frightening, but lets get a grip.
Debunking of link #1 http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2004-01/27/con tent_301145.htm
m
This building had 4 floors added to it illegally. It ends with this quote:
Building collapses are common in Egypt and are often caused by shoddy construction or the unauthorized building of extra stories. The last such incident was May 4, when a seven-story apartment building collapsed in Cairo, killing at least seven people.
Debunking link #2 http://www.china.org.cn/english/2003/Nov/79742.ht
This is still under investigation. The cause of the collapse is not yet determined.
In both of these articles, the word steel is absent. How do you know they are of similar construction?
How is that for calling bullshit?
Minor correction: The whatreallyhappened site is the one with the video. Sorry for that mistake.
I call bullshit on the "people standing at the impact site". Do you have a link to pictures to back that up? I remember watching TV and seeing a whole lot of smoke coming out of both buildings, indicating a fire or massive deployment of smoke machines by the illuminati.
1 70105womanwaving.htm
Here is a link:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_fire.html
And this: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2005/
and one more: http://hereisnewyork.org/jpegs/photos/5088.jpg
Now let me also say that I don't construe this as hard evidence. Prisonplanet has video (I haven't watched the video). Forrest Gump shook hands with Kennedy. I'm being skeptical, but this looks legit. So here are your photos and video. Debunk it at your pleasure.
US goverment intervenes in Joe Citizen Vs. BellSouth, AT&T and Verizon.
Are you kidding? They got the PATRIOT act out of Hitler's bunker. They just had to freshen it up a little. Hitler didn't have email.
polls smolls. Here is my short rant on polls. They are very flawed. Telephone polls especially. Those without landlines don't get polled. They need to start sending people door to door in various regions. This will be flawed too, but I believe that telephone polls are getting more and more skewed. Of course, the president's rating has tanked, according to polls, so maybe they are on to something. I don't know. Anyone here have expertise with polling? What is the non-response error for a typical telephone poll? A face to face poll? A mail poll? Shouldn't those who poll use combination of all three (or more techniques)?
My guess, is that like everything else, cost cutting is preventing accurate polling. It costs money to poll. I'm sure that telephone polls are the cheapest. Maybe they can just make a magic 8 ball with poll numbers in it.
Great. We are at the apathy and dependency stage now. I got to go thru bondage, spiritual faith, and great courage, just to get the liberty I'm looking for? Is this some sort of tootsie roll pop? A lot of licking to get to that nice center of liberty. That sounds like hard work.
Thanks for the quote though.
And yes, I'm being sarcastic. Possibly funny.
I think you are splitting hairs. Diesel is the engine. Whatever it burns is now diesel fuel. "diesel fuel" as we know it, is only called that because they burn it in diesels. I believe the term biodiesel can be used for any fuel which is made from carbon neutral sources, and is burned in a diesel. The conversion you mention is to reduce the viscosity of vegetable oil, so it will run through an injection system of an engine designed to run on traditional fossil diesel fuel. I don't see why someone couldn't design a diesel injection system which will run on a wide range of fuel viscosities. Kerosene also burns well in diesels, but some injector pumps won't like it, and wear out quicker. Large diesels on ships run on a less refined fuel, called bunker-c.
It may be time to start using more descriptive terminology for diesel fuels. Technically, they are all fuel oils.
AC makes good point here:
The US can not have a multi-party system because our electoral system punishes any political party that is not one of the big two. People seem to think that the reason we have a two-party system is because the Republicans and Democrats actively lock out third parties. That is only partially true. They do discourage other parties. But the real problem is that each governmental seat is determined by an individual election, and there is no prize for second place. As such, the American voter has to make every vote count by voting for the most palatable canidate who actually has a shot at winning. That means always voting for either the Republican or the Democrat. A vote for a third party canidate is a wasted vote. And because every office down to local officials is elected in the same way, small parties can barely even get a foothold in local government. The last time a third party rose to prominence (the Republicans) another party fell apart (the Whigs). In order to sustain a multi party system, our election system would have to reward the second, third, fourth, fifth, (etc.) place winners. Our Constitution does not provide the structure for that. If, by some miracle, both parties dissolved tomorrow, another two-party system wold evolve and took remarkably similar to what we have now
Ok, help me here, I serious, I'm not a history major, and I went to a public school.
I believe a Approval voting or Rank voting could allow other parties, if you gave "second place" to vice and lieutenant [president/governor] positions. I mean, hey the present system orinally had Vice President go to the guy who got the second amount of the electorial vote, correct?
Overall, the mutated system that we have has worked pretty well the past ~200 years or so, right? Time to get some amendments going.
I'm not trying to be a smart ass or anything. I just am tired of the current system.
Do you think the two party system is an ideal solution to goverment?
It seems to me that in the media, which needs its own house cleaned as well, can always boil any thing down to Republican/Democrat, pro life/pro choice, one issue/second issue, pro war/anti war. I mean, the war is happening now, I'd assume that people would like it to end at some point right? Sorry, I'm getting off topic.
I just feel that there is some way to have a multiparty system. Maybe we need rotating presidents. And the whole thing is really tainted with money. Money, Money, Money. Where does most of it go anyway? Advertising? Holding dinners and events? Paying friends to work for you? Where does it all go? Hookers and limos from dirty lobbists?
Excellent point. I also believe we (the US) needs to change to an Approval voting or Rank voting scheme.
But you don't understand. If there was no Democratic party, the Republican party would have need to invent them. They are two sides of the same coin. I also love it when people talk about third parties. We don't need third parties, we need third, forth, fifth and sixth parties. The more the better. The Democrats and Republicans are just playing us with the good cop/bad cop routine. They are still not on the average joe's side. They are out there for the moneyed interests. The two party system is just that, a system. A method of aggregating power while at the same time giving the illusion of checks and balances. They make everthing a false dichotomy. Society is too complex for a two party system.
So: CALL OR WRITE THAT PERSON WHO YOU VOTED FOR, AND ARE PAYING TO REPRESENT YOU. IT WORKS SOMETIMES.
I agree with most of what you said, but it is no good for me to call or write the person I voted for, they lost. So, you shouldn't call or write the person who you voted for, but the person who won the election and therefore represents you. I'm sure this is what you meant, I just thought it was funny, because I seem to be on the losing side all too often.