Okay, but if you were looking for radical changes to the tax system, social security, entitlements, etc., then Barack Obama was never your candidate. He never campaigned on making significant changes there. If you wanted Bob Barr to be President, that's fine, but it's silly to criticize Obama for not doing what he never promised to do.
Moreover, I think you underestimate what's required to effect change in Washington. People with no experience in government are unlikely to accomplish anything, because they don't know how to work the system. You don't show up in DC, snap your fingers, pronounce "let's have some entitlements reform" and have it happen.
Now look at the appointments we've seen so far. I'll give you Clinton and even Eric Holder. Given Larry Summers' wide experience, I think it's unfair to call him a Clintonite, but I'll give you him too. But I don't know how you can describe Gates, Jones, Chu, Geithner, Romer, Napolitano, and Daschle as Clinton retreads, or practitioners of "old style politics of the left."
So what you really want is the illusion of change. You want to see new faces, but don't care what actually gets accomplished. As for me, I want competent people who know how to get things done. I want action to meet the serious challenges this country faces.
You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But given the record high approval ratings we've seen for the Obama transition, I'd say most Americans see things my way.
Speaking purely for myself, the "change" I was looking for when I voted for Barack Obama was a shift towards competence and practicality in government. I want Obama to choose the best -- the smartest, the most savvy, the most accomplished, the hardest working -- people to help him lead the country, and I don't give a damn whether they used to be in the Clinton administration.
When I look at his appointments so far, I see three extremely respected economists, an absolutely superb and forward thinking Defense Secretary, a Nobel laureate for Energy, a woman with international recognition and appeal for State, a HHS secretary with a record of working for universal health care, and a tough bastard as CoS to push the agenda through. That's what I want.
I don't know what change you were looking for, but I'm happy.
I hate to disagree with you, but that first question is logically and mathematically correct. The average is assumed, but that's pretty standard usage; when we talk about health care spending per person in the US, we don't mean everyone pays exactly $4721.
But what they're asking is, essentially:
Q: If A = B, then...
A: A/x = B/x
My problem with this question is that, while it demonstrates one's knowledge of 7th grade pre-algebra, it has nothing to do with civics. It's like putting one of those "two trains leave New York and Detroit at 1pm" questions on a locomotive engineer exam.
As for the last question you mention, I disagree with your answer but definitely agree that it's a loaded question.
I took it and got all 33 answers right. This is not to brag, but to establish some limited credentials for when I say: this test sucks. Hard.
Okay, yeah, people should know the three branches of government and who has the power to declare war. On the other hand, a lot of questions and answers are very vague or misleading. Some examples:
Q: If taxes equal government spending, then:
A: tax per person equals government spending per person
This question tests your grasp of logic or algebra, not civics. For the record, another option is "government debt is zero." This is incorrect because it's the deficit that's zero, not the debt. It's designed to confuse. A knowledgeable person could get this question wrong merely by being careless.
Q: Free markets typically secure more economic prosperity than governmentâ(TM)s centralized planning because:
A: the price system utilizes more local knowledge of means and ends
This is not the answer I would have given in a non-multiple choice test. I picked it because it was better than the other options.
Q: Free enterprise or capitalism exists insofar as:
A: individual citizens create, exchange, and control goods and resources
This is just phrased poorly. Why not be clear and ask "What is the definition of capitalism?"
Anyway, of course people should be doing better on this than they are. But it's still a crappy test. And for the record, the "officials" cited aren't exactly Barack Obama and John McCain; they're poll respondents who indicated that they have held elected office at one point. That could include your local dogcatcher, the chairman of your condo association, the head of your PTA, etc.
Yeah, Spirit has definitely done well. Still, it's sad to see the thing die right before they release a major motion picture about it. The timing has a real Obama's-grandmother vibe, you know?
Did you hear about Seagate's new Sarahcuda drive? Not only does it also have 1.5 terabytes of capacity, but it scrambles your data so as it make it completely incomprehensible. Plus you get a free one if you vote for John McCain
You can't prove you have the "something you have" as in reality anything can be copied and thus you might just have a copy. Most of the token "things" are really a case of "something (something you have) knows" which isn't much better than "something you know".
Right?
Right. Moreover, given a good hacksaw, biometrics can easily move from "something you are" to "something I have."
Good morning Canada, how are you?
Don't you know me, I'm your neighbor below
I'm the state you called the city of New Jersey
and I've got 500 miles of phosphorus glow
Right, why doesn't the government profile the people it doesn't know are coming? Also, why doesn't it arrest people before they commit crimes? Why didn't they ground the planes on 9/11 before they took off? Why didn't they kill Hitler before the Holocaust?
Seriously, I don't understand your objection. Are you saying that because we can't know about everyone crossing the border, we shouldn't investigate those we do know about?
I think it's a great idea. After all, Google can give you plans and instructions for making a nuclear weapon! We wouldn't want that information to fall into the wrong hands.
DoD unclass networks aren't any more secure than your standard corporate ones. Obviously, it's not good if the Chinese (or anyone) gain unauthorized access to them. But hacking something like JWICS or even SIPRnet would be much more disturbing.
Of course not. He's saying that most RMTs take off for the Chinese New Year, not that most people who take off for the Chinese New Year are RMTs. Having rather little idea of what an RMT is, I don't know if that is true, but I can tell you that the two statements are quite dissimilar and have very different implications.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, but if you were looking for radical changes to the tax system, social security, entitlements, etc., then Barack Obama was never your candidate. He never campaigned on making significant changes there. If you wanted Bob Barr to be President, that's fine, but it's silly to criticize Obama for not doing what he never promised to do.
Moreover, I think you underestimate what's required to effect change in Washington. People with no experience in government are unlikely to accomplish anything, because they don't know how to work the system. You don't show up in DC, snap your fingers, pronounce "let's have some entitlements reform" and have it happen.
Now look at the appointments we've seen so far. I'll give you Clinton and even Eric Holder. Given Larry Summers' wide experience, I think it's unfair to call him a Clintonite, but I'll give you him too. But I don't know how you can describe Gates, Jones, Chu, Geithner, Romer, Napolitano, and Daschle as Clinton retreads, or practitioners of "old style politics of the left."
So what you really want is the illusion of change. You want to see new faces, but don't care what actually gets accomplished. As for me, I want competent people who know how to get things done. I want action to meet the serious challenges this country faces.
You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But given the record high approval ratings we've seen for the Obama transition, I'd say most Americans see things my way.
When I look at his appointments so far, I see three extremely respected economists, an absolutely superb and forward thinking Defense Secretary, a Nobel laureate for Energy, a woman with international recognition and appeal for State, a HHS secretary with a record of working for universal health care, and a tough bastard as CoS to push the agenda through. That's what I want.
I don't know what change you were looking for, but I'm happy.
Did anyone grab william.tel yet?
Dude, you haven't truly sexually harassed anyone until you've sexually harassed a robot receptionist.
But what they're asking is, essentially:
Q: If A = B, then ...
A: A/x = B/x
My problem with this question is that, while it demonstrates one's knowledge of 7th grade pre-algebra, it has nothing to do with civics. It's like putting one of those "two trains leave New York and Detroit at 1pm" questions on a locomotive engineer exam.
As for the last question you mention, I disagree with your answer but definitely agree that it's a loaded question.
Okay, yeah, people should know the three branches of government and who has the power to declare war. On the other hand, a lot of questions and answers are very vague or misleading. Some examples:
Q: If taxes equal government spending, then:
A: tax per person equals government spending per person
This question tests your grasp of logic or algebra, not civics. For the record, another option is "government debt is zero." This is incorrect because it's the deficit that's zero, not the debt. It's designed to confuse. A knowledgeable person could get this question wrong merely by being careless.
Q: Free markets typically secure more economic prosperity than governmentâ(TM)s centralized planning because:
A: the price system utilizes more local knowledge of means and ends
This is not the answer I would have given in a non-multiple choice test. I picked it because it was better than the other options.
Q: Free enterprise or capitalism exists insofar as:
A: individual citizens create, exchange, and control goods and resources
This is just phrased poorly. Why not be clear and ask "What is the definition of capitalism?"
Anyway, of course people should be doing better on this than they are. But it's still a crappy test. And for the record, the "officials" cited aren't exactly Barack Obama and John McCain; they're poll respondents who indicated that they have held elected office at one point. That could include your local dogcatcher, the chairman of your condo association, the head of your PTA, etc.
So don't be too alarmed.
Yeah, Spirit has definitely done well. Still, it's sad to see the thing die right before they release a major motion picture about it. The timing has a real Obama's-grandmother vibe, you know?
Did you hear about Seagate's new Sarahcuda drive? Not only does it also have 1.5 terabytes of capacity, but it scrambles your data so as it make it completely incomprehensible. Plus you get a free one if you vote for John McCain
Just remember: a cat is no trade for integrity. On the other hand, I got a cat for my wife once; that was a great trade.
That's nothing! I had a 286 machine 15 years ago that didn't have a CD drive.
You can't prove you have the "something you have" as in reality anything can be copied and thus you might just have a copy. Most of the token "things" are really a case of "something (something you have) knows" which isn't much better than "something you know".
Right?
Right. Moreover, given a good hacksaw, biometrics can easily move from "something you are" to "something I have."
It can work as "something you know," all you have to do is memorize your private key. Kids these days; they want everything to be easy.
Good morning Canada, how are you?
Don't you know me, I'm your neighbor below
I'm the state you called the city of New Jersey
and I've got 500 miles of phosphorus glow
A mute button would be great, but I find that this extension works just as well!
Right, why doesn't the government profile the people it doesn't know are coming? Also, why doesn't it arrest people before they commit crimes? Why didn't they ground the planes on 9/11 before they took off? Why didn't they kill Hitler before the Holocaust? Seriously, I don't understand your objection. Are you saying that because we can't know about everyone crossing the border, we shouldn't investigate those we do know about?
Ummmm...wouldn't that count as an incentive?
I think it's a great idea. After all, Google can give you plans and instructions for making a nuclear weapon! We wouldn't want that information to fall into the wrong hands.
You're wrong about the "for the first time in history" part, that's for sure.
DoD unclass networks aren't any more secure than your standard corporate ones. Obviously, it's not good if the Chinese (or anyone) gain unauthorized access to them. But hacking something like JWICS or even SIPRnet would be much more disturbing.
Doesn't cure cancer? Apparently you're not familiar with the mystery app!
Yes, MDA is great for games. However, I find the tweaking to be a serious downside.
That's completely inappropriate. Slime molds don't shoot people.
If your characters actually collected "grass," this would quickly become the most popular game in the WORLD.
Of course not. He's saying that most RMTs take off for the Chinese New Year, not that most people who take off for the Chinese New Year are RMTs. Having rather little idea of what an RMT is, I don't know if that is true, but I can tell you that the two statements are quite dissimilar and have very different implications.