Its sad that something like this has to bring home the point that the pissing and moaning some of the Americans (raises hand) here do about the euros should stop for good..
We are a *textbook* democracy. Republics and democracies are not mutually exclusive, as you seem to think.
So in a textbook democracy the vote of a personon in one area (Wyoming) counts more towards electing the chief executive officer than any other? in a Democracy 1/6th the population can controll half the senate?
We elect our local and state representatives (without exception, so far as I know) by direct methods.
At the state level I think youre right, though who would be suprised if some state in the Union was slightly off kilter. I was talking about the national level.
You also omit the fact that, while 50 million people could control the Senate, they could not control the House; without control of both, you cannot pass a law.
Yes but with control of either you can stop anything from becoming law! meaning unlike a democracy 1/6th of the people of the US can stop the other 5/6th from doing something. Is that textbook democracy.
Would you like to try explaining why a government wherein the governors (not the state governors, but the individuals who govern the state) are directly elected isn't a democracy? I'll let you try, if you like.
For one because I was talking about the federal government where the democratically elected state governers have basically *zero* power to do anything.
Simple declaratives are for simple people.
Ill let the irony of that simple declarative sit with you..
Wll more what I mean is we are not a democracy the way people mean when they say "you would think were a democracy but blah blah evil corporations blah blah 2000 election". People mean that the will of the people is what prevails and in nations where you cote a party and that party then selects who goes, or who is prime minister.
To call both the US and the UK democracies when there are real differences is not at all helpful.
Lets put it this way, in a presidential election the vote of someone in Wyoming counts far more than smoeone in California... is that a democracy?
See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=154983&cid=129 95423 above
I dont trust wiki as an authorative source on such things, it often is slanted one way or the other because those who submit are lsanted one way or the other.
People need to realize a democratic process does not mean democracy..
So what separates a nation where parties (or even people) are elected on a national level by say popular vote... and the US where the president is selected by electors (not the people see 2000). Where less than 20% of the nations population can elect half of the US senate, and where changing the way government works requires 3/4ths of the states to vote on it?
Rather than use one line frmo a dictionary which draws no distinction between a proportional democracy and a democratic republic I would like to use something more substantial
Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.
It may look subtle but thats a huge difference
In a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. in a Democracy, whatever the masses decide is right or law, is right and the law for "everyone". Regardless if you like it or not, even if it tramples your right to own property or exercise your individual liberty. In a Republic, no individual or any majority or any group of people, no matter how large can supercede the rights of any single individual citizen.
Now there is no true democracy in the world (and no pure republic) but the US leans far more towards republic than European nations like France, and Germany (who lean far more towards democracy).
As in, a republic wherein the representatives are elected via democratic means, you nitpicking prat.
In otherwords *NOT A DEMOCRACY* the majority does not elect the US president (see 2000), infact one could mangle control of the senate with a fraction of the nations population! (25 Smallest states and any one senator from a larger sate).
Lets start at Kentucky and work our way down to wyoming there is about 50 Million people in those states out of 300 million.. thats right about 1/6th the us population can hold half of the senate and seing as you only need 40% of the senate to stop anything from hapening thats a good deal of power.
So no we are not a democracy, were not even close and we were never intended to be. We dont elect parties, we elect people! and we dont live by mob rule..
If thats the case make it 18-36 months from the time of issue.
Im sure there are also arguments that can blow that out of the water, but the point is there can be compromise and software patents should not last so long that long obsolete technology is still covered...
This is not just a victory for opensource. Companies will have more room to reverse engineer software. This will also benefit closed source companies! everyone wins.
Personally my only problem with software patents is the length. I think that an 18-36 month patent is reasonable but anything over that is not.
The left has been dreaming of someone knocking the US off as top dog starting the day after the USSR fell apart. Liberals in the media and government have cried that the US needs a counter balance, maybe thts why Clinton took money from the chicoms and Kerry went on a 'outsourcing' visit to china on a lobbyist paid trip.
create more unemployed skilled workers
This is the kind of crap the makes me laugh and vomit at the same time. When unskilled jobs were getting exported to Mexico and China (auto, machine tools, textiles) Bill Clinton and the elites talked to us as if this was a great opportunity for American workers to retool for the information economy, unskilled workers almost deserved it in their eyes.
Now the other foot has come down and Americans are discovering that almost any job can be done somewhere else in the world, accounting, software dev, MRI/X-Ray MD's,.... Heck I was at home depot the other day and they are down to two cashiers monitoring eight fast pass lanes (self check-out) which I am sure were not produced in the US.
Hell we had a trade deficit on food how sick is that! The fact is Clintons obsession with NAFTA, GAT, and getting China into the WTO (while I might add they created a trade barrier by fixing their currnecy) put this country in a position where we cant compete in the unskill markets. Combine that with the fact youll never have enough skilled demand to run an economy on and Ross Perots 'big sucking sound' makes a good deal more sense does it not?
Free trade as sold by both aprties is a sick joke on the American worker, taxpayer, and economy. The only sound constitutional means to raise revenue is via tariffs and with the exception of Oil, chrome and a few other things the US could fend for itself (well could have when we had a manufacturing base).
If as a nation we wanted to have free trade with most of the EU, Canada, Japan, Isreal, South Korea, (all nations with environment standards, human rights standards, and a decent standard of living) heck I might even consider the Saudi's (sadly we kind of need them more than they need us), but China, India? pathetic on the environment, human rights, standard of living..
the forthcoming assimilation of the latter's lead actors by the former.
Im only bummed that RDA will not be on the show as much, but he has made his money (heck he is still making a boatload as Ex without acting in it) and wants to spend time with family. His character really made the show what it was, and held the line until they all developed in seasons 2+.
I also am not happy with what they are doing with claudia black, one dimentional really boring character. Farscape had the best acting of pretty much any sci fi series I had ever seen (a fact which made up for luke warm writing in many episodes of the latter seasons) so Bringing BB will be great if his charcter fills the gap being left by Anderson without being too much of a copy..
There should be a sliding tax scale. Why should the guy who makes $10 an hour pay a whole hours worth of work to have his monitor disposed, when the guy making $80 an hour only has to pay 7 minutes of his time for the same government service??
Because they are both getting the same thing, recycling service. Should we charge different amounts for people to get there license? buy a stamp? use a toll lane? pay overdue fees on a book?. Youre alreay taking more money (both in % and in dollars) from the guy making 80$ an hour...
The anwser is to have a luxery tax based on income. Those in the bottom half would pay nothing. Those in the top 50% would pay some fee, and those in the top 25% would pay an additional fee.
I would hardly call kicking in response to noise a significant interaction with the universe. And of course a newborn is not much more capable than a fetus of interaction, but the process has begun.
She could do everything ten minutes after birth that she could do ten minutes before.. She interacted to me (and my wife) in the only way she could, the same way s five month old premi would (but I guess thats not a baby either).
Please. There's a large difference between saying that a grown and conscious human should be treated as a non-person due to their ancestry, and saying that an undeveloped fetus - or even a fertilized ovum - should not be given the same (or superior) ethical consideration than the (grown and conscious) mother.
No, there really is not. Dont get pissed that others try to frame the debate in their favor and the deny you doing the same is insignificant.. Through the use of language you are dehumanizing something because it fints in nice with the way you would like the world to be.
If youre willing to say kicking in the womb does not count I would like to know is it ethical to kill a premature baby?
I tend to think its like many dispositions. Take the drink, I avoid it because gentically its not a good idea for me, I am not an addict but could more easily become one than say Bob, because its not in bobs genetic profile...
I think homosexuality is similar, there are people who will not be Gay no matter what than there are degrees of people who are more prone to their environment..
If a woman had no choice in becoming pregnant (rape), then she still retains the choice of whether or not to remain pregnant. Abortion allowed, case closed.
I dont know how I feel on this one, its a hard issue but it all comes down to when is it a human life. If you think its not until (x mos) than rape is not different than a college kegger, if you think its conception than a two week old (in the womb) or two year old (out of the wmob) product of rape is no different than a kid made from a loving healthy relationship and should have the same right..
1 a : an unborn or recently born person b dialect : a female infant
Your claim that something cant be a fetus and a child is like saying that somthing cant be a toddler and a child. There are onyl two major changes (moments when everything becomes different) in human life, conception and death. Everything other than these two things is a subtle developemnt of the person.
A fetus is not in this state, it cannot interact with the world
Really my (now 3 week old) would kick up a strom in my wife when I talked into her belly, thats as much interaction as I got for a few days after birth..
but by using the same word those who oppose abortion make a strong emotional appeal.
And those who insist its not a kid but a fetus (when infact its both) are doing nothing more than hitler did when he said the Jews we not people..
Those that want to postpone may be postponing because they aren't old enough to care for the child properly.
Huh?? How young is too young to give a kid up for adoption!
Not being able to afford the child is definatly a good reason. You really think we need more kids growing up in ghettos? Is THAT how we get useful members of society? Lets not forget the welfare, that we ALL pay for, further draining resources from people that may not be in poverty but are also on tight incomes.
Nicholi Tesla was a poor imigrant, guess he should have been aborted. Damn those poor people in ghettoe's they cant raise kids! they should just abort them. Margaret Sanger the Nazi Eugenest and founder of planned parenthood would be proud..
A child really should have a mother and father, or are you saying that being without one has no effect on the child at all?
Better one parent than well um.. dead! how many kids today are rasied in single family households?
Disrupting education or career; again.. you'd rather an uneducated mother attempting to raise a child, at times when even a college degree doesn't garentee decent earnings?
Well heck there we go again, those stupid uneducated poor people cant raise kids..
Wow your post in more ways than I could ever hope to demonstrate how racist, sexist, and classist (word?) abortion is... thank you..
Slashdot Mirror
God be with those who lost loved ones today..
Its sad that something like this has to bring home the point that the pissing and moaning some of the Americans (raises hand) here do about the euros should stop for good..
So in a textbook democracy the vote of a personon in one area (Wyoming) counts more towards electing the chief executive officer than any other? in a Democracy 1/6th the population can controll half the senate?
We elect our local and state representatives (without exception, so far as I know) by direct methods.
At the state level I think youre right, though who would be suprised if some state in the Union was slightly off kilter. I was talking about the national level.
You also omit the fact that, while 50 million people could control the Senate, they could not control the House; without control of both, you cannot pass a law.
Yes but with control of either you can stop anything from becoming law! meaning unlike a democracy 1/6th of the people of the US can stop the other 5/6th from doing something. Is that textbook democracy.
Would you like to try explaining why a government wherein the governors (not the state governors, but the individuals who govern the state) are directly elected isn't a democracy? I'll let you try, if you like.
For one because I was talking about the federal government where the democratically elected state governers have basically *zero* power to do anything.
Simple declaratives are for simple people.
Ill let the irony of that simple declarative sit with you..
To call both the US and the UK democracies when there are real differences is not at all helpful.
Lets put it this way, in a presidential election the vote of someone in Wyoming counts far more than smoeone in California... is that a democracy?
See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=154983&cid=129 95423 above
I dont trust wiki as an authorative source on such things, it often is slanted one way or the other because those who submit are lsanted one way or the other.
People need to realize a democratic process does not mean democracy..
Rather than use one line frmo a dictionary which draws no distinction between a proportional democracy and a democratic republic I would like to use something more substantial
Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.
It may look subtle but thats a huge difference
In a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. in a Democracy, whatever the masses decide is right or law, is right and the law for "everyone". Regardless if you like it or not, even if it tramples your right to own property or exercise your individual liberty. In a Republic, no individual or any majority or any group of people, no matter how large can supercede the rights of any single individual citizen.
Now there is no true democracy in the world (and no pure republic) but the US leans far more towards republic than European nations like France, and Germany (who lean far more towards democracy).
In otherwords *NOT A DEMOCRACY* the majority does not elect the US president (see 2000), infact one could mangle control of the senate with a fraction of the nations population! (25 Smallest states and any one senator from a larger sate).
Lets start at Kentucky and work our way down to wyoming there is about 50 Million people in those states out of 300 million.. thats right about 1/6th the us population can hold half of the senate and seing as you only need 40% of the senate to stop anything from hapening thats a good deal of power.
So no we are not a democracy, were not even close and we were never intended to be. We dont elect parties, we elect people! and we dont live by mob rule..
Im sure there are also arguments that can blow that out of the water, but the point is there can be compromise and software patents should not last so long that long obsolete technology is still covered...
No the main problem is people think we are *or ever were* intended to be a democracy when infact we are a republic!
Personally my only problem with software patents is the length. I think that an 18-36 month patent is reasonable but anything over that is not.
Im sorry did you say MS made the BSD TCP stack even better? I was under the impression they just used it.
create more unemployed skilled workers
This is the kind of crap the makes me laugh and vomit at the same time. When unskilled jobs were getting exported to Mexico and China (auto, machine tools, textiles) Bill Clinton and the elites talked to us as if this was a great opportunity for American workers to retool for the information economy, unskilled workers almost deserved it in their eyes.
Now the other foot has come down and Americans are discovering that almost any job can be done somewhere else in the world, accounting, software dev, MRI/X-Ray MD's, .... Heck I was at home depot the other day and they are down to two cashiers monitoring eight fast pass lanes (self check-out) which I am sure were not produced in the US.
Hell we had a trade deficit on food how sick is that! The fact is Clintons obsession with NAFTA, GAT, and getting China into the WTO (while I might add they created a trade barrier by fixing their currnecy) put this country in a position where we cant compete in the unskill markets. Combine that with the fact youll never have enough skilled demand to run an economy on and Ross Perots 'big sucking sound' makes a good deal more sense does it not?
Free trade as sold by both aprties is a sick joke on the American worker, taxpayer, and economy. The only sound constitutional means to raise revenue is via tariffs and with the exception of Oil, chrome and a few other things the US could fend for itself (well could have when we had a manufacturing base).
If as a nation we wanted to have free trade with most of the EU, Canada, Japan, Isreal, South Korea, (all nations with environment standards, human rights standards, and a decent standard of living) heck I might even consider the Saudi's (sadly we kind of need them more than they need us), but China, India? pathetic on the environment, human rights, standard of living..
Im only bummed that RDA will not be on the show as much, but he has made his money (heck he is still making a boatload as Ex without acting in it) and wants to spend time with family. His character really made the show what it was, and held the line until they all developed in seasons 2+.
I also am not happy with what they are doing with claudia black, one dimentional really boring character. Farscape had the best acting of pretty much any sci fi series I had ever seen (a fact which made up for luke warm writing in many episodes of the latter seasons) so Bringing BB will be great if his charcter fills the gap being left by Anderson without being too much of a copy..
No, Google was polite they explained themselves, did not start with "we'll sue your @$$"...
Because they are both getting the same thing, recycling service. Should we charge different amounts for people to get there license? buy a stamp? use a toll lane? pay overdue fees on a book?. Youre alreay taking more money (both in % and in dollars) from the guy making 80$ an hour...
The anwser is to have a luxery tax based on income. Those in the bottom half would pay nothing. Those in the top 50% would pay some fee, and those in the top 25% would pay an additional fee.
Wish I had mod points!
Someone else to take money out of my check, scream at me who I should vote for, and make life hell for my employer..
She could do everything ten minutes after birth that she could do ten minutes before.. She interacted to me (and my wife) in the only way she could, the same way s five month old premi would (but I guess thats not a baby either).
Please. There's a large difference between saying that a grown and conscious human should be treated as a non-person due to their ancestry, and saying that an undeveloped fetus - or even a fertilized ovum - should not be given the same (or superior) ethical consideration than the (grown and conscious) mother.
No, there really is not. Dont get pissed that others try to frame the debate in their favor and the deny you doing the same is insignificant.. Through the use of language you are dehumanizing something because it fints in nice with the way you would like the world to be.
If youre willing to say kicking in the womb does not count I would like to know is it ethical to kill a premature baby?
Also how fast would homosexuals jump on board for Abortion restrictions (usually they are pro-choice) if people could abort a gay baby..
I think homosexuality is similar, there are people who will not be Gay no matter what than there are degrees of people who are more prone to their environment..
hey spunky the hate monger is back, welcome back spunky..
if its a person its a person, if its not its not... either its ok because its a lump of cells (could be gay, geek, or blue eyed) or its not..
I dont know how I feel on this one, its a hard issue but it all comes down to when is it a human life. If you think its not until (x mos) than rape is not different than a college kegger, if you think its conception than a two week old (in the womb) or two year old (out of the wmob) product of rape is no different than a kid made from a loving healthy relationship and should have the same right..
Your claim that something cant be a fetus and a child is like saying that somthing cant be a toddler and a child. There are onyl two major changes (moments when everything becomes different) in human life, conception and death. Everything other than these two things is a subtle developemnt of the person.
A fetus is not in this state, it cannot interact with the world
Really my (now 3 week old) would kick up a strom in my wife when I talked into her belly, thats as much interaction as I got for a few days after birth..
but by using the same word those who oppose abortion make a strong emotional appeal.
And those who insist its not a kid but a fetus (when infact its both) are doing nothing more than hitler did when he said the Jews we not people..
Huh?? How young is too young to give a kid up for adoption!
Not being able to afford the child is definatly a good reason. You really think we need more kids growing up in ghettos? Is THAT how we get useful members of society? Lets not forget the welfare, that we ALL pay for, further draining resources from people that may not be in poverty but are also on tight incomes.
Nicholi Tesla was a poor imigrant, guess he should have been aborted. Damn those poor people in ghettoe's they cant raise kids! they should just abort them. Margaret Sanger the Nazi Eugenest and founder of planned parenthood would be proud..
A child really should have a mother and father, or are you saying that being without one has no effect on the child at all?
Better one parent than well um.. dead! how many kids today are rasied in single family households?
Disrupting education or career; again.. you'd rather an uneducated mother attempting to raise a child, at times when even a college degree doesn't garentee decent earnings?
Well heck there we go again, those stupid uneducated poor people cant raise kids..
Wow your post in more ways than I could ever hope to demonstrate how racist, sexist, and classist (word?) abortion is... thank you..
Ill give you B5 and I never saw Firefly, but whats your beef with SG1, You also left out farscape..