Erm, eMusic's not dead. It could be dying, but it seems pretty healthy to me. (They did change their subscription terms a couple years ago, from nearly unlimited downloads to 40-90 tracks a month, which p*ssed me off at the time, but now I'm over it. On the other hand, their site is a lot nicer to use now.)
Though still focusing on indie labels, they have stuff from Bloc Party, Spoon, Interpol and other modern-rock darlings. In other genres, they've got Isaac Hayes, "Genius Loves Company" (bestselling Ray Charles duets album), and the Pharcyde. They just added Gillian Welch (glad I didn't buy her album yet from the ITMS!)
Anyway, their catalog may not have some of the top-40 poprocks (that's what I like to call it) out right now, but when I browse their site and see all the stuff that gets added each week, "so limited" is not the phrase that comes to mind.
There's Audiolunchbox.com and Magnatunes.com (alternative/indie stuff), Calabashmusic.com (which specializes in world music), and several others listed here: http://www.andrewdavidson.com/links/mp3-download/
And actually, I thought emusic had gone downhill too (I was really angry about the abrupt change in service terms -- they really should have given long-time customers download credits or something), but I have to say that I've been finding lots of stuff each month that I like, and I like the redesign. Go figure.
Er... you do realize that whether you pay $5/movie at Blockbuster or $15/month through Zip or Netflix, you're RENTING in both cases? It's not like Blockbuster let you keep the movie afterwards.
I have albums that I still listen to years after I bought them. I was a member of Emusic for years, then I cancelled for a year, and it was really nice to still be able to listen to all the stuff I'd gotten from them. It didn't stop working when I ended my subscription.
Certainly, there is a case to be made for subscription/"rental" services. My mother loves the one she's signed up with -- it's like her own personal radio station. But my parents still buy CDs that they know they'll want to hear again and again, no matter who their "music service provider" is.
I'm sorry, but I can't find anything called "Loosing Bin Ladin". Maybe because it's supposed to be spelled "losing"?
What was the reference to Ollie North about? To remind us of the high ethical standards of the Bush administration?
Please, please, spellcheck and provide citations to your claims. Otherwise, we'll all feel"alianated" or"alianted" from this discussion.
There is actually a *free* program that will convert videos to Flash format: Turbine Video Encoder. I tried it and it worked like a charm. The only downside (and for some, it's a considerable downside!) is that it only runs on Windows. However, the resulting Flash files worked just great on my Mac in Safari and Firefox, on Windows in Firefox and IE, and in Linux in Firefox.
Leaving aside the snotty Linux comment and how we feel about Microsoft and Bill Gates...
I'm not sure how comfortable I feel about the fact that a billionaire is singlehandedly stepping in to do what the United Nations, and all of its member countries, will not do. It's great that the Gates Foundation has decided to do this, and I think they do a lot of good work, but we're becoming increasingly dependent on the whims of a few billionaires. Sometimes those whims are excellent (we can thank Andrew Carnegie for kickstarting our public library system!) but they are no substitute for national and international policy.
Bill Gates's foundation can buy vaccines, but he can't change the regulatory climate for pharmaceutical companies, launch an investigation into pricing practices, stop civil wars in the countries where kids lack vaccination, strengthen the Kyoto Treaty to slow global warming... etc.
I think what these large foundations do is great, and they definitely have their important part to play, but I fear that they are also used as an excuse for inaction by our government, and other governments.
After working in a low-paid publishing job for 5 years, I went back to school and have never regretted it. I think you'll get the most of it if you do an internship during school, and take classes in other departments as well -- for example, students in my program also took classes in education and law.
I was lucky in that many (in fact, most) of the students in my department were also people who had been in the working world for years and were in the same boat -- trying to get used to being students again. They had more perspective and wisdom to share!
There are lots of programmers out there, but if you can demonstrate an interest and understanding in other fields -- fields that could be served by programming -- you'll gain an advantage.
"yet you yourself are following these scientists (have have just as much data against them as with them) as though they are you own personal Saviour."
Please see the Science article I referenced in another posting. You'll see that this statement is false. Multiple independent studies have shown that humans are having an impact on the climate, and there seems to be wide agreement among scientists. Hell, even the EPA has a website up about it.
"The last ice age, volcanoes, and the billions of years that this planet has been in existence, yet some scientists using an incredibly short span of history believe they can suddenly prognosticate what impact we humans are having on a planet whose age is so large a number that we can scarcely wrap our minds around it say we're suddenly about to impact it more than all of the previous time combined".
Oh, the planet will balance itself and recover eventually. We just may manage to impact our environment enough so that it won't be very livable for us!
No kidding you're going to have a lot of bills to pay!
Without taxes, you'd have to foot the bill for
-- A private police force -- A private road system -- Your own sewage-treatment plant -- Private schools (would be the only option) -- Food testers (since there'd be no government program to try to ensure the safety of the food supply)
You wouldn't have the benefits of all the scientific research from public universities. Nor would you be participating in this conversation if it wasn't for the Internet, which was originally ARPANET, and was funded with -- oh, looky here! -- tax dollars!
Generations of American citizens have paid their taxes, knowing that in return, they'd get a system which was the envy of the world, and knowing that they'd be taken care of in turn by future generations of taxpayers who would keep things going, and benefit, as you do, from the investments of the past.
Now who wants to use other people's money while selfishly hording their own?
Oh, and by the way, check out some details on the "dubious science", that "fantasy" you so scornfully refer to: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. It's pretty well accepted by reputable scientists that global warming is happening, and it's being caused by human activity (such as the hot air coming from certain directions on this thread)
Finally, I have to point out that this country has a glorious (well, sometimes) tradition of finding business opportunities in every challenge, be it war or male impotence. There's a huge potential market in environmentally friendly products and green energy generation technology. We could be CREATING jobs while slowing global warming!
Wow... do you actually communicate with real live women ever, or do you regard them as some kind of separate species? Perhaps you aren't so comfortable with people in general!
Look, anytime you work with people, you have to deal with issues of psychology and communications styles. By "Open Source" I suspect you really mean development environments that only require you to deal with people electronically, not in a workplace. But even then, miscommunications can be a major problem. Tone (and context, sometimes) are lost in writing, and misunderstandings can rapidly spiral out of control.
I suspect you've had more than your share of flame-wars, judging from your "style." Perhaps you enjoy constantly butting heads, but collaboration is honestly more satisfying, and people aren't really so scary!
"An examination of Kerry's real voting record during his 20 years in the Senate indicates that he did vote to restrict or cut certain weapons systems. From 1989-92, he supported amendments to halt production of the B-2 stealth bomber. (In 1992, George H.W. Bush halted it himself.) It is true that the B-2 came in handy during the recent war in Iraq--but for reasons having nothing to do with its original rationale.
"The B-2 came into being as an airplane that would drop nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union. The program was very controversial at the time. It was extremely expensive. Its stealth technology had serious technical bugs. More to the point, a grand debate was raging in defense circles at the time over whether, in an age of intercontinental ballistic missiles and long-range cruise missiles, the United States needed any new bomber that would fly into the Soviet Union's heavily defended airspace. The debate was not just between hawks and doves; advocates and critics could be found among both.
"In the latest war, B-2s--modified to carry conventional munitions--were among the planes that dropped smart bombs on Iraq. But that was like hopping in the Lincoln stretch limo to drop Grandma off at church. As for the other stealth plane used in both Iraq wars--the F-117, which was designed for non-nuclear missions--there is no indication that Kerry ever opposed it.
"The RNC doesn't mention it, but Kerry also supported amendments to limit (but not kill) funding for President Reagan's fanciful (and eventually much-altered) "Star Wars" missile-defense system. Kerry sponsored amendments to ban tests of anti-satellite weapons, as long as the Soviet Union also refrained from testing. In retrospect, trying to limit the vulnerability of satellites was a very good idea since many of our smart bombs are guided to their targets by signals from satellites.
"Kerry also voted for amendments to restrict the deployment of the MX missile (Reagan changed its deployment plan several times, and Bush finally stopped the program altogether) and to ban the production of nerve-gas weapons.
"At the same time, in 1991, Kerry opposed an amendment to impose an arbitrary 2 percent cut in the military budget. In 1992, he opposed an amendment to cut Pentagon intelligence programs by $1 billion. In 1994, he voted against a motion to cut $30.5 billion from the defense budget over the next five years and to redistribute the money to programs for education and the disabled. That same year, he opposed an amendment to postpone construction of a new aircraft carrier. In 1996, he opposed a motion to cut six F-18 jet fighters from the budget. In 1999, he voted against a motion to terminate the Trident II missile. (Interestingly, the F-18 and Trident II are among the weapons systems that the RNC claims Kerry opposed.)"
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/
Also, do I really need to point out that Kerry actually has fought in a war and is a decorated veteran, while Bush didn't even complete his service? Kerry has actually fought for his country, and he came by his positions on the appropriate uses of the military honestly.
"Can you imagine the U.S. reaction to terrorism under Kerry?"
You mean: Restoring funding of our emergency services? Not getting into wars that have nothing to do with fighting terrorism? Not locking up people for years and depriving them of their civil liberties? Actually trying to combat terrorism rather than using it as an excuse to fulfill extreme agendas?
As others have pointed out, you're a libertarian, and this administration is the most big-government and invasive one in memory. If that disconnect doesn't give you pause for thought, what about the actual terror-fighting record of the Bush administration?
--State Dept. Doubles Its Calculation on '03 Terrorism Casualties
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/22/politics/22CND-T ERR.html
--Top CIA Analyst Says US Losing War on Terrorism
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/local/ 9076726.htm
And since this administration seems to believe in cutting those wimpy domestic services programs, we end up with these results (please excuse the length; source: Center for American Progress)
--"Despite a $2 billion federal investment, the nation's public health system is only marginally better prepared today to handle a bioterrorism attack or other health emergency than it was in 2001."- USA Today, 12/12/03
--The federal program that added more than 100,000 cops to local police forces is being rolled back because local governments can't afford to keep many of the officers on the street. Law enforcement analysts say that the largest federally funded buildup of local police in U.S. history is being washed away by cutbacks." - USA Today, 12/2/03
--"The White House is now saying that its spending plan does not provide enough money to protect against terrorist attacks on American soil. It concedes that domestic counterterrorism programs were shortchanged." - NY Times, 2/26/03
And that's leaving aside the issues of Afghanistan being left to crumble back into chaos, the Iraq debacle, and the assaults on civil liberties -- and if you as a libertarian don't care enough about those, what kind of libertarian are you?
To sum it up - Bush administration: not making us safer!
Well, if spelling "and" gives you difficulty and you're not clear on the difference between the possessive "its" and the contracted "it is", perhaps OS X is a bit tricky, then...;-)
Yes, when you lower taxes, they are not as high. How clever of you to figure that out. They were not high in 2000, however, and to cut taxes during war is nothing short of treasonous in my book. Others on this thread have already pointed out the errors in your math, so I'll leave it at that.
Oh, and what was your share of the tax cut? I calculated that I'm getting $40 a month. Whoo-hoo. On the other hand, the price of my transportation to work is going up, my property taxes and sales taxes are probably going to go up (because we have to pay for "liberal" niceties like police and fire services somehow, ya know), and the quality of life in my town is going down faster than the tax rate. All of this is costing me way more than the precious tax cut gives me. If you think there's no connection, you need deprogramming badly.
And go on. Tell me what a fabulous job we're doing in Iraq. Yes, we've got a great bunch of soldiers over there, and they deserve all the credit and support we can give them -- but their commander in chief and his advisors are betraying them and serving this country -- and the people of Iraq -- terribly. Sure, the U.S. could overthrow Saddam with no help, but you can't rebuild a shattered country without getting lots of help. Your refusal to admit it, like the refusal of our current regime, is a big part of the problem and no part of the solution.
And that ain't spin. That's the truth beyond Fox News, my dear.
Dean signed the civil unions bill because Vermont was ordered to change their laws by the Vermont supreme court. The reason was that the previous law violated a little something called "equal protection under the law", something real Americans should be in favor of.
Dean is pro-choice -- and he should know better than anyone else why this is a good idea, because he was a doctor for over a decade and saw the impact of unwanted pregnancy on real women's lives. And I use the word women" loosely, because in his book, he writes about having to treat 13 year pregnant girls and tell their parents about it!
"Massive tax hike"? No, that would be REVERSING the terrible and pointless tax cuts that Bush implemented DURING WARTIME -- something no president was previously stupid enough to do. Dean's record in Vermont was actually rather conservative on the budget front -- he hated raising taxes (though he would do it when necessary) and he balanced the budget every year.
Foreign policy: sorry, you've got it all wrong and must be thinking of someone else. Dean wants us to stay the course and rebuild Iraq as we promised we'd do -- he just thinks we could use some help from other countries. See http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?page name=policy_policy_foreign_iraq_7pointplan . As for your other comments, it's clear that you don't know anything about diplomacy or history. (You've got something in common with the current administration then)
I'm sorry that the fact that Dean might actually become President disturbs you so much, but don't worry -- he wants to improve the life of all Americans, even misinformed people who for some reason still support an administration that does NOTHING for them and is ruining this country. Take another look.
Emusic already specializes in MP3s from independent labels. They actually started out selling albums individually, and then switched to the subscription model -- and I suspect there's a reason. Apple is doing well with the individual song/album sales, but probably because they've got a lot of mainstream stuff -- people probably buy that hit song they liked in high school, or that
album they always meant to get around to buying. I suspect EMusic customers have very different buying patterns to begin with.
It seems like you'll be reinventing the wheel, even though you're talking about doing some things better (the downloadable artwork is a nice touch.)
Rather than set up a duplicate system, why not sign up as an affiliate? BoombasticRadio is a pretty interesting example of what you can do -- check out www.boombasticradio.com.
(Note: I'm not an employee of Emusic or Boombastic ((or even Apple)) -- but I do like them and use them often.)
People keep bringing up that "but it costs SO MUCH MONEY TO FILL UP AN IPOD" argument. Frankly, whether it would theoretically cost $5000 or $7500 is kind of silly. First of all, you have to figure people already own music, and they'll be converting it to mp3 and loading it on their ipods. Second, no law says you have to fill it up, any more than you're obliged to stream every song on a music service. (Personally, I want that 30GB iPod for file storage and transfer -- it's an elegant little portable drive!) Third, I don't know about you all, but I happen to work in an office where you're not allowed to stream audio. I have a bunch of mp3s on my hard drive ripped from CDs and downloaded from Emusic, and that's it. If I couldn't own my bits, I'd have no tunes.
Another thing... I don't like this DRM nonsense getting in my way. I'm happy to pay a reasonable price for music (As I said, I subscribe to Emusic) but I don't want a bunch of complicated restrictions on what I can and can't do with it. I feel that Apple has done a pretty good balancing act here. Streaming audio is great -- if you have high bandwidth -- but that's what Shoutcast is for. Sure, you're not going to get specific songs on demand, but not knowing what an online radio station is going to play next is part of the joy, at least it is for me. (I've discovered a lot of great music through BoombasticRadio.com)
Um, it's difficult to believe because it's not really accurate. (What does "usually" mean anyway?) There are some links reported in studies between how you use your eyes and eyesight problems, but that doesn't mean you can exercise your way out of nearsightedness. (Believe me, I wish you could!) There's a lot of different eye problems you can have, and you can't lump them all into one category under "chronic muscle tension."
Although if you're nearsighted (as I am -- very!) your night vision is probably pretty bad anyway.
Still, it is surgery -- I wouldn't do it lightly!
OTOH, a friend of mine who works in accounting/auditing, and certainly needs her eyes, had it done and reported that it was very successful (apart from her night vision getting even worse than it was)
Also, a good book that I haven't seen mentioned yet (if it was mentioned, I apologize): Terrorism and the Constitution, by David Cole and James X. Dempsey.
...And as an employee of a nonprofit which laid off people a couple of months ago, I can tell you that security is not guaranteed anywhere!
However, it depends on what motivates you to work, and where you feel comfortable.
I am motivated to work at a nonprofit by a mixture of factors. Not a big risk-taker by nature, and strongly disliking the corporate experience I have had, I've preferred the slightly funkier atmosphere in the public sector.
Moreover, helping a company sell more widgets isn't that exciting for me, but working for a place that has a more altruistic mission is.
As for pay...you have to figure out what you can afford to work for. I was extremely lucky and got offered a salary that seemed, and still seems, generous, but unfortunately that's pretty rare in the nonprofit world, unless you're a grantwriter or something.
For more information about life in the nonprofit world, I'd suggest visiting www.philanthropy.com or www.techsoup.com.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you sure? They are largely independent labels...
Shorter version: "Give me boobies or give me death!"
Erm, eMusic's not dead. It could be dying, but it seems pretty healthy to me. (They did change their subscription terms a couple years ago, from nearly unlimited downloads to 40-90 tracks a month, which p*ssed me off at the time, but now I'm over it. On the other hand, their site is a lot nicer to use now.)
Though still focusing on indie labels, they have stuff from Bloc Party, Spoon, Interpol and other modern-rock darlings. In other genres, they've got Isaac Hayes, "Genius Loves Company" (bestselling Ray Charles duets album), and the Pharcyde. They just added Gillian Welch (glad I didn't buy her album yet from the ITMS!)
Anyway, their catalog may not have some of the top-40 poprocks (that's what I like to call it) out right now, but when I browse their site and see all the stuff that gets added each week, "so limited" is not the phrase that comes to mind.
There's Audiolunchbox.com and Magnatunes.com (alternative/indie stuff), Calabashmusic.com (which specializes in world music), and several others listed here: http://www.andrewdavidson.com/links/mp3-download/
And actually, I thought emusic had gone downhill too (I was really angry about the abrupt change in service terms -- they really should have given long-time customers download credits or something), but I have to say that I've been finding lots of stuff each month that I like, and I like the redesign. Go figure.
Er... you do realize that whether you pay $5/movie at Blockbuster or $15/month through Zip or Netflix, you're RENTING in both cases? It's not like Blockbuster let you keep the movie afterwards. I have albums that I still listen to years after I bought them. I was a member of Emusic for years, then I cancelled for a year, and it was really nice to still be able to listen to all the stuff I'd gotten from them. It didn't stop working when I ended my subscription. Certainly, there is a case to be made for subscription/"rental" services. My mother loves the one she's signed up with -- it's like her own personal radio station. But my parents still buy CDs that they know they'll want to hear again and again, no matter who their "music service provider" is.
I'm sorry, but I can't find anything called "Loosing Bin Ladin". Maybe because it's supposed to be spelled "losing"? What was the reference to Ollie North about? To remind us of the high ethical standards of the Bush administration? Please, please, spellcheck and provide citations to your claims. Otherwise, we'll all feel"alianated" or"alianted" from this discussion.
There is actually a *free* program that will convert videos to Flash format: Turbine Video Encoder. I tried it and it worked like a charm. The only downside (and for some, it's a considerable downside!) is that it only runs on Windows. However, the resulting Flash files worked just great on my Mac in Safari and Firefox, on Windows in Firefox and IE, and in Linux in Firefox.
e o/
http://www.blue-pacific.com/products/turbinevid
Leaving aside the snotty Linux comment and how we feel about Microsoft and Bill Gates... I'm not sure how comfortable I feel about the fact that a billionaire is singlehandedly stepping in to do what the United Nations, and all of its member countries, will not do. It's great that the Gates Foundation has decided to do this, and I think they do a lot of good work, but we're becoming increasingly dependent on the whims of a few billionaires. Sometimes those whims are excellent (we can thank Andrew Carnegie for kickstarting our public library system!) but they are no substitute for national and international policy. Bill Gates's foundation can buy vaccines, but he can't change the regulatory climate for pharmaceutical companies, launch an investigation into pricing practices, stop civil wars in the countries where kids lack vaccination, strengthen the Kyoto Treaty to slow global warming... etc. I think what these large foundations do is great, and they definitely have their important part to play, but I fear that they are also used as an excuse for inaction by our government, and other governments.
After working in a low-paid publishing job for 5 years, I went back to school and have never regretted it. I think you'll get the most of it if you do an internship during school, and take classes in other departments as well -- for example, students in my program also took classes in education and law.
I was lucky in that many (in fact, most) of the students in my department were also people who had been in the working world for years and were in the same boat -- trying to get used to being students again. They had more perspective and wisdom to share!
There are lots of programmers out there, but if you can demonstrate an interest and understanding in other fields -- fields that could be served by programming -- you'll gain an advantage.
"yet you yourself are following these scientists (have have just as much data against them as with them) as though they are you own personal Saviour."
Please see the Science article I referenced in another posting. You'll see that this statement is false. Multiple independent studies have shown that humans are having an impact on the climate, and there seems to be wide agreement among scientists. Hell, even the EPA has a website up about it.
"The last ice age, volcanoes, and the billions of years that this planet has been in existence, yet some scientists using an incredibly short span of history believe they can suddenly prognosticate what impact we humans are having on a planet whose age is so large a number that we can scarcely wrap our minds around it say we're suddenly about to impact it more than all of the previous time combined".
Oh, the planet will balance itself and recover eventually. We just may manage to impact our environment enough so that it won't be very livable for us!
But hey, relax, kick back with a beer, and enjoy your oceanfront property in Kiribati!
No kidding you're going to have a lot of bills to pay!
Without taxes, you'd have to foot the bill for
-- A private police force
-- A private road system
-- Your own sewage-treatment plant
-- Private schools (would be the only option)
-- Food testers (since there'd be no government program to try to ensure the safety of the food supply)
You wouldn't have the benefits of all the scientific research from public universities. Nor would you be participating in this conversation if it wasn't for the Internet, which was originally ARPANET, and was funded with -- oh, looky here! -- tax dollars!
Generations of American citizens have paid their taxes, knowing that in return, they'd get a system which was the envy of the world, and knowing that they'd be taken care of in turn by future generations of taxpayers who would keep things going, and benefit, as you do, from the investments of the past.
Now who wants to use other people's money while selfishly hording their own?
Oh, and by the way, check out some details on the "dubious science", that "fantasy" you so scornfully refer to: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. It's pretty well accepted by reputable scientists that global warming is happening, and it's being caused by human activity (such as the hot air coming from certain directions on this thread)
Finally, I have to point out that this country has a glorious (well, sometimes) tradition of finding business opportunities in every challenge, be it war or male impotence. There's a huge potential market in environmentally friendly products and green energy generation technology. We could be CREATING jobs while slowing global warming!
I love them. I also really like Calabash Music (http://www.calabashmusic.com/ for world music. (Usual disclaimer applies: not affiliated, et al)
Wow... do you actually communicate with real live women ever, or do you regard them as some kind of separate species? Perhaps you aren't so comfortable with people in general! Look, anytime you work with people, you have to deal with issues of psychology and communications styles. By "Open Source" I suspect you really mean development environments that only require you to deal with people electronically, not in a workplace. But even then, miscommunications can be a major problem. Tone (and context, sometimes) are lost in writing, and misunderstandings can rapidly spiral out of control. I suspect you've had more than your share of flame-wars, judging from your "style." Perhaps you enjoy constantly butting heads, but collaboration is honestly more satisfying, and people aren't really so scary!
"Completely anti-military"?
OK, let's look at his voting record, then!
"An examination of Kerry's real voting record during his 20 years in the Senate indicates that he did vote to restrict or cut certain weapons systems. From 1989-92, he supported amendments to halt production of the B-2 stealth bomber. (In 1992, George H.W. Bush halted it himself.) It is true that the B-2 came in handy during the recent war in Iraq--but for reasons having nothing to do with its original rationale.
"The B-2 came into being as an airplane that would drop nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union. The program was very controversial at the time. It was extremely expensive. Its stealth technology had serious technical bugs. More to the point, a grand debate was raging in defense circles at the time over whether, in an age of intercontinental ballistic missiles and long-range cruise missiles, the United States needed any new bomber that would fly into the Soviet Union's heavily defended airspace. The debate was not just between hawks and doves; advocates and critics could be found among both.
"In the latest war, B-2s--modified to carry conventional munitions--were among the planes that dropped smart bombs on Iraq. But that was like hopping in the Lincoln stretch limo to drop Grandma off at church. As for the other stealth plane used in both Iraq wars--the F-117, which was designed for non-nuclear missions--there is no indication that Kerry ever opposed it.
"The RNC doesn't mention it, but Kerry also supported amendments to limit (but not kill) funding for President Reagan's fanciful (and eventually much-altered) "Star Wars" missile-defense system. Kerry sponsored amendments to ban tests of anti-satellite weapons, as long as the Soviet Union also refrained from testing. In retrospect, trying to limit the vulnerability of satellites was a very good idea since many of our smart bombs are guided to their targets by signals from satellites.
"Kerry also voted for amendments to restrict the deployment of the MX missile (Reagan changed its deployment plan several times, and Bush finally stopped the program altogether) and to ban the production of nerve-gas weapons.
"At the same time, in 1991, Kerry opposed an amendment to impose an arbitrary 2 percent cut in the military budget. In 1992, he opposed an amendment to cut Pentagon intelligence programs by $1 billion. In 1994, he voted against a motion to cut $30.5 billion from the defense budget over the next five years and to redistribute the money to programs for education and the disabled. That same year, he opposed an amendment to postpone construction of a new aircraft carrier. In 1996, he opposed a motion to cut six F-18 jet fighters from the budget. In 1999, he voted against a motion to terminate the Trident II missile. (Interestingly, the F-18 and Trident II are among the weapons systems that the RNC claims Kerry opposed.)"
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/
Also, do I really need to point out that Kerry actually has fought in a war and is a decorated veteran, while Bush didn't even complete his service? Kerry has actually fought for his country, and he came by his positions on the appropriate uses of the military honestly.
"Can you imagine the U.S. reaction to terrorism under Kerry?"
You mean: Restoring funding of our emergency services? Not getting into wars that have nothing to do with fighting terrorism? Not locking up people for years and depriving them of their civil liberties? Actually trying to combat terrorism rather than using it as an excuse to fulfill extreme agendas?
Sign me up!
As others have pointed out, you're a libertarian, and this administration is the most big-government and invasive one in memory. If that disconnect doesn't give you pause for thought, what about the actual terror-fighting record of the Bush administration? --State Dept. Doubles Its Calculation on '03 Terrorism Casualties http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/22/politics/22CND-T ERR.html
--Top CIA Analyst Says US Losing War on Terrorism
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/local/ 9076726.htm
And since this administration seems to believe in cutting those wimpy domestic services programs, we end up with these results (please excuse the length; source: Center for American Progress)
--"Despite a $2 billion federal investment, the nation's public health system is only marginally better prepared today to handle a bioterrorism attack or other health emergency than it was in 2001."- USA Today, 12/12/03
--The federal program that added more than 100,000 cops to local police forces is being rolled back because local governments can't afford to keep many of the officers on the street. Law enforcement analysts say that the largest federally funded buildup of local police in U.S. history is being washed away by cutbacks." - USA Today, 12/2/03
--"The White House is now saying that its spending plan does not provide enough money to protect against terrorist attacks on American soil. It concedes that domestic counterterrorism programs were shortchanged." - NY Times, 2/26/03
And that's leaving aside the issues of Afghanistan being left to crumble back into chaos, the Iraq debacle, and the assaults on civil liberties -- and if you as a libertarian don't care enough about those, what kind of libertarian are you?
To sum it up - Bush administration: not making us safer!
Well, if spelling "and" gives you difficulty and you're not clear on the difference between the possessive "its" and the contracted "it is", perhaps OS X is a bit tricky, then... ;-)
Yes, when you lower taxes, they are not as high. How clever of you to figure that out. They were not high in 2000, however, and to cut taxes during war is nothing short of treasonous in my book. Others on this thread have already pointed out the errors in your math, so I'll leave it at that.
Oh, and what was your share of the tax cut? I calculated that I'm getting $40 a month. Whoo-hoo. On the other hand, the price of my transportation to work is going up, my property taxes and sales taxes are probably going to go up (because we have to pay for "liberal" niceties like police and fire services somehow, ya know), and the quality of life in my town is going down faster than the tax rate. All of this is costing me way more than the precious tax cut gives me. If you think there's no connection, you need deprogramming badly.
And go on. Tell me what a fabulous job we're doing in Iraq. Yes, we've got a great bunch of soldiers over there, and they deserve all the credit and support we can give them -- but their commander in chief and his advisors are betraying them and serving this country -- and the people of Iraq -- terribly. Sure, the U.S. could overthrow Saddam with no help, but you can't rebuild a shattered country without getting lots of help. Your refusal to admit it, like the refusal of our current regime, is a big part of the problem and no part of the solution.
And that ain't spin. That's the truth beyond Fox News, my dear.
Right.
e name=policy_policy_foreign_iraq_7pointplan . As for your other comments, it's clear that you don't know anything about diplomacy or history. (You've got something in common with the current administration then)
In the REAL world...
Dean signed the civil unions bill because Vermont was ordered to change their laws by the Vermont supreme court. The reason was that the previous law violated a little something called "equal protection under the law", something real Americans should be in favor of.
Dean is pro-choice -- and he should know better than anyone else why this is a good idea, because he was a doctor for over a decade and saw the impact of unwanted pregnancy on real women's lives. And I use the word women" loosely, because in his book, he writes about having to treat 13 year pregnant girls and tell their parents about it!
"Massive tax hike"? No, that would be REVERSING the terrible and pointless tax cuts that Bush implemented DURING WARTIME -- something no president was previously stupid enough to do. Dean's record in Vermont was actually rather conservative on the budget front -- he hated raising taxes (though he would do it when necessary) and he balanced the budget every year.
Foreign policy: sorry, you've got it all wrong and must be thinking of someone else. Dean wants us to stay the course and rebuild Iraq as we promised we'd do -- he just thinks we could use some help from other countries. See http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pag
I'm sorry that the fact that Dean might actually become President disturbs you so much, but don't worry -- he wants to improve the life of all Americans, even misinformed people who for some reason still support an administration that does NOTHING for them and is ruining this country. Take another look.
Emusic already specializes in MP3s from independent labels. They actually started out selling albums individually, and then switched to the subscription model -- and I suspect there's a reason. Apple is doing well with the individual song/album sales, but probably because they've got a lot of mainstream stuff -- people probably buy that hit song they liked in high school, or that album they always meant to get around to buying. I suspect EMusic customers have very different buying patterns to begin with. It seems like you'll be reinventing the wheel, even though you're talking about doing some things better (the downloadable artwork is a nice touch.) Rather than set up a duplicate system, why not sign up as an affiliate? BoombasticRadio is a pretty interesting example of what you can do -- check out www.boombasticradio.com. (Note: I'm not an employee of Emusic or Boombastic ((or even Apple)) -- but I do like them and use them often.)
People keep bringing up that "but it costs SO MUCH MONEY TO FILL UP AN IPOD" argument. Frankly, whether it would theoretically cost $5000 or $7500 is kind of silly. First of all, you have to figure people already own music, and they'll be converting it to mp3 and loading it on their ipods. Second, no law says you have to fill it up, any more than you're obliged to stream every song on a music service. (Personally, I want that 30GB iPod for file storage and transfer -- it's an elegant little portable drive!) Third, I don't know about you all, but I happen to work in an office where you're not allowed to stream audio. I have a bunch of mp3s on my hard drive ripped from CDs and downloaded from Emusic, and that's it. If I couldn't own my bits, I'd have no tunes.
Another thing... I don't like this DRM nonsense getting in my way. I'm happy to pay a reasonable price for music (As I said, I subscribe to Emusic) but I don't want a bunch of complicated restrictions on what I can and can't do with it. I feel that Apple has done a pretty good balancing act here. Streaming audio is great -- if you have high bandwidth -- but that's what Shoutcast is for. Sure, you're not going to get specific songs on demand, but not knowing what an online radio station is going to play next is part of the joy, at least it is for me. (I've discovered a lot of great music through BoombasticRadio.com)
Yep, it's a scam. MacDV had a long discussion about it. Go to http://lists.themacintoshguy.com/Lists/MacDV/List. html and search for "Marbella".
Um, it's difficult to believe because it's not really accurate. (What does "usually" mean anyway?) There are some links reported in studies between how you use your eyes and eyesight problems, but that doesn't mean you can exercise your way out of nearsightedness. (Believe me, I wish you could!) There's a lot of different eye problems you can have, and you can't lump them all into one category under "chronic muscle tension."
Although if you're nearsighted (as I am -- very!) your night vision is probably pretty bad anyway.
Still, it is surgery -- I wouldn't do it lightly!
OTOH, a friend of mine who works in accounting/auditing, and certainly needs her eyes, had it done and reported that it was very successful (apart from her night vision getting even worse than it was)
Also, a good book that I haven't seen mentioned yet (if it was mentioned, I apologize): Terrorism and the Constitution, by David Cole and James X. Dempsey.
...And as an employee of a nonprofit which laid off people a couple of months ago, I can tell you that security is not guaranteed anywhere! However, it depends on what motivates you to work, and where you feel comfortable. I am motivated to work at a nonprofit by a mixture of factors. Not a big risk-taker by nature, and strongly disliking the corporate experience I have had, I've preferred the slightly funkier atmosphere in the public sector. Moreover, helping a company sell more widgets isn't that exciting for me, but working for a place that has a more altruistic mission is. As for pay...you have to figure out what you can afford to work for. I was extremely lucky and got offered a salary that seemed, and still seems, generous, but unfortunately that's pretty rare in the nonprofit world, unless you're a grantwriter or something. For more information about life in the nonprofit world, I'd suggest visiting www.philanthropy.com or www.techsoup.com.