From "Our candidate is totally not just like the last president!" to "Well, the other guy has betrayed his morals, too!" Also pathetic.
Yes, as one of his supporters, I am disappointed in his vote on this measure, and that is why I am one of many people who has called for him to change his vote on the measure. And yes, I am still going to vote for him, because on issues of maintaining the war, economy, health care, environment, and many other important facets of our government, he's the guy who's going to, y'know, be a change from the awful job that the last administration did, whereas his opponent is pretty much calling for more of the same.
That's not a hypocrisy - it's a recognition that our candidate isn't perfect, but that he's still pretty solid. As I said on the last post on the issue, most of the opposition here is coming from the Obama camp, from people who are voting for the candidate and thus want him to hear their opinions on the subject. The only people who see this as a serious dealbreaking issue are the McCain supporters who are looking for any bare ground they can gain, since their own candidate has lost pretty much any of the ground that they had to stand on as a "maverick" in the Senate....In which case, it's an even bigger hypocrisy.
Yes, exactly. Obama has built a campaign around the idea of changing the system, and so on this issue, his supporters want to know why he isn't taking a stand. No one is asking why McCain isn't taking a stand on this issue, because they all know that McCain fully supports Bush's policies in this area to begin with. Obama's supporters are pushing him to change his mind because they know that he is listening, even if he disagrees - and he directly responded to them with a statement earlier in the week apologizing that the issue just wasn't enough of a dealbreaker for him to keep fighting over. McCain, however, is Bush's bestest buddy now, and we know that everything involving the war with him is totally squeaky clean and there can't possibly be anything going wrong with our administration.
Y'know, McCain used to be the one with a campaign built around accountability and efficiency. It's too bad we don't have that McCain around anymore - that McCain might have actually lead the fight against this immunity. The current McCain, he's going to vote present on this issue, too.
You'll notice that none of the people who are angry at Obama over this scrap are trying to get McCain to change his position. For most of those people, it's because they support Obama. They don't consider their vote for him to be a waste, but they consider this move to be a bad decision. "If you vote for someone you don't really want to see in charge then you're screwing up the system." Well, these people want to see Obama in charge, and so they want him to hear what they think. Except for the real hypocrites here, of course: the McCain supporters, who look for any way to paint Obama as not being true to his message, while McCain has been flip-flopping so much in the past three months that he could almost try out for the U.S. Olympic gymnastics team.
So what are they doing now? They're doing kinda what you're supposed to be doing in a Democratic society. Rather than sitting around whining about the evils of the two parties, they mounting a strong campaign to let their selected nominee know that he is not representing their interests with this decision and are trying to get him to see the light. You know, they're participating in government. Rather than just putting in a vote for some libertarian candidate and saying, "Well, my guy didn't win, so you can't blame me," they're actually trying to change the landscape. That's what activists do, y'know - they're active.
To keep spouting this adolescent "lesser of two evils" crap is getting tiresome. In this election, there is A LOT OF FUCKING DIFFERENCE between the two candidates. There is a lot of difference in the way they want to run the war, there is a lot of difference in the way they want to run domestic issues. I apologize that Americans are still a bunch of sheep who can't get John Wayne or Eric Cartman or whoever your perfect candidate is supposed to be elected to the White House, but in this election, a vote for Obama against a vote for McCain is seriously going to mean something, and I'm sorry that the 25%-less-of-a-tool candidate that the DNC is running still isn't enough for your tastes.
Bush's reply has been something along the lines of, "There are men and women out there dying in Iraq. We need this bill to pass so that we can go back to making the world safe for our soldiers and our families. So please hurry up and make telephone companies immune from prosecution."
The major disconnect here has been that Bush has had plenty of opportunity to just sign the bill and go back to listening in on phone conversations. The fact that he has hung the entire bill on the passage of retroactive immunity has made it clear that he's either just fucking around and seriously doesn't care about what the military agenda is, or he's clearly got something to hide involving those phone companies. Either way, I'ma go make a bag of popcorn and wait to see what happens next.
He also walked into the city flanked by dancers waving palm trees and singing his praises, despite knowing that his life was in danger (which would have better encouraged sneaking into town). He once stated that he came to turn brother against brother, to start a fight over the true place of the world. He encouraged nonviolent resistance - such as, shaming your debtor by giving him both your outer and inner garment and walking home naked. Jesus was a pacifist, in that he believed that violence was not the answer, but he knew when to get involved. Interpret "turning over tables" as you wish.
But it still begs the question, how does the government expect to deal with internet content that comes in from foreign soil? Beyond that, are they planning to have some kind of task force independently hunting down adult material, or are they expecting concerned consumers to file complaints? Neither the article nor the ACMA website seems to address just how any of this is going to be dealt with.
Here's the ironic side of this - the Democrats are pretty much in a lock to have the next White House, barring another extreme disaster that sends people running back to Big Brother again. All of these broad, sweeping changes for the power of the White House will only be partially in effect for Bush's term... and fully in effect for Obama or Clinton's term. The Democrats would like to thank the Republicans for giving them such broad power. (Not that I support either of them having it, mind you.)
As noted below, GOP Rep. Eric Cantor came up with a clever way of throwing a wrench into the FISA bill, which was scheduled to be voted on today and which is opposed by Republicans.
He threatened this afternoon to submit an amendment that would have mandated that nothing in the bill "shall be construed to prohibit the intelligence community from conducting surveillance needed to prevent Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or any other foreign terrorist organization...from attacking the United States or any United States person."
Though this language has no real legislative meaning, it nonetheless was effective in forcing Dems to yank the bill. That's because he introduced this in such a way that would have procedurally forced the bill to go back to committee and delayed it for an untold amount of time.
That left House Dem leaders scrambling today to figure out how to respond. And so, instead of letting this measure effectively scuttle the legislation, they decided to postpone the vote until next week in order to regroup and figure out how to proceed. "This legislative maneuvering by Republicans was a cynical attempt by Republicans to kill the bill," a senior House Dem aide griped to Election Central.
Granted, it was pretty spineless of the Dems to not call the GOP out more directly for trying to poison pill the bill and take a stand against such a silly amendment (and as someone who voted for one of those Democratic senator, I'm personally pretty pissed), but that doesn't mean the minority party doesn't have any tools at their disposal.
And the gameplay of Disgaea really isn't, well, weird. The storyline is. The characters are unique and the dialogue can be hilarious. The gameplay, however, can be summed up as, "Move next to a guy and hit him. And if any of your teammates are standing next to you, you get a bonus!" And by the way, the job system in that game is horrible - your boxer character has evolved into a... nother boxer character with the exact same moves! And now you get to go back and grind it back up from level 1 again! I've heard a lot of people hype Disgaea as the next big RPG series, but I've also met a handful of people who, like myself, just quit at a certain point and couldn't continue playing.
Your question reminds me of something I heard being discussed when I used to live in L.A. People were talking a lot about the continual expansions of the suburbs, how more and more people were moving out of the city to get away from the high rents, so they were building up more and more along the outer edges. However, all of those new buildings required new infrastructure - new roads, new water pipes, new electric lines. The concern was that in building all of that new infrastructure, it was cutting away from the city's budget to fix the current infrastructure already present in the older areas of the city, and thus a lot of older, poorer residential areas were getting the shaft. I'm not sure how fully relevant that is to your idea; it was just a topic that came to mind.
Right, there are a vast number of esoteric topics - known only by an esoteric group of people. If the people that know those topics aren't doing Wikipedia edits, then who will?
Actually, TFA points out that the biggest issue seems to be that the politicians involved are trying to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to be the leaders of a vast new public works project, but they don't actually want to fund those projects. So instead of putting together a comprehensive plan for creating and maintaining the wireless network, they just offer a particular private company a set fee to do it for them. Without a strong sense of oversight or purpose, the private company's projects never developed to the point of providing the same reliability or usefulness as a public facility. The article implies that if we want to really build a municipal network, then we're going to need to take the initiative to fully fund and operate the network at a public rather than a private level.
I'll tell you what it's become - it's become a world where values-free comics like Nextwave, Deadpool, and the Irredeemable Ant-Man are totally awesome.:D
I sympathize with that response, but on the other hand, these aren't real people. You'd think the embodiment of American ideals and values would be able to coherently define those ideals and values, y'know?
On one online comic forum I troll through, the majority of the readers are generally pissed off about Civil War. On the one hand, creating an effective pro-registration side meant essentially turning some superheroes evil. SHIELD shot first at Captain America - not for not wanting to register, but for not wanting to hunt down his old friends. And Iron Man lost all credibility he had in this encounter, including hiring former supervillians to start a false war with Atlantis, just to prove his point.
Problem is, all of the "good guys" weren't much better. Rather than actually providing solid arguments as to what they were opposing the government for, most of the superheroes just ran around shouting how bad the government is and smoking weed and putting flowers in their hair. The few times that Captain America had a moment in front of a reporter to explain his case, he just listed a bunch of hippie talking points, rather than actually talking about how the law could hurt superheroes, or even mentioning that SHIELD shot at him first.
Civil War could have been a chance to have some real commentary on modern issues, but it quickly devolved into just a chance for people to fight each other. There was no real discussion, no real logic, and Cap's sudden death just capped the whole thing off as being an attempt for controversy rather than any sort of political message.
In the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, the majority opinion stated that some speech should not be regulated no school time - like taking an actual stance on the marijuana debate. So, y'know, it should be all right that a school can issue disciplinary action for protected speech off of school grounds just as long as it's "disruptive."
In the Hein case, SCOTUS ruled that you could file a lawsuit against the executive branch for misusing funds for religious purposes, but you had to be a group deliberately passed over for funds in favor of a religious group solely on the basis of religious standing (which should be a very easy thing to prove, right?) Y'know, they left that door open.
In Gonzales v. Carhart, the SCOTUS ruled that law can restrict the use of a medical procedure as long as another procedure exists. So, y'know, it's not like you can just ban any medical procedure, just the ones where there's another way to do things.
You're not supposed to run ads that support or oppose a specific candidate right before an election. However, SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that if you run an ad that strongly supports a certain agenda, and hint that one politician doesn't support that agenda, that's actually kinda okay. I mean, it's not really about that politician. It's not like we actually gutted McCain-Feingold.
The 5-4 Ledbetter decision wasn't about the ability to sue your employer for sex discrimination. No, it was just about being late on your decision to sue. An employee didn't realize she was being consistently gypped on her pay scale, but when she'd finally realized it, she was told that she had to file a Title IX suit within 180 days of getting her paycheck. So, you know, as long as you figure out that you're getting screwed over fairly quickly, then you still have the right to sue.
And now, SCOTUS is saying, in a 5-4 decision, that there are some price floors that aren't so bad. Oh, sure, many price floors are still bad, and you can go ahead and try to get them ruled against. That option is open. But do you see a pattern here? I don't necessarily disagree with one or two of these decisions, but the reasoning that Chief Justice Roberts is continuing to employ seems very wishy-washy. He recognizes that harm potentially exists, but he doesn't see any problems with continually opening these loopholes. On the other hand, Scalia has no such qualms - he's been using his concurrent opinions to call for direct changes to precendent and to call Roberts a sissy for not having the guts to admit what impact his decisions are going to have.
We have so many "not that big a deal" cases being settled on thin margins. But little-deal cases can easily set precedent for bigger ones, especially in the lower appeals courts that defer to SCOTUS decisions. The question is, can you drive an 18-wheeler through this loophole decision?
John Simson of SoundExchange, the "non-profit" set up to collect internet radio royalties. Didn't I just hear this guy's name somewhere? Oh yeah, he was just mentioning how "The time comes that we really have to [start collecting royalties from terrestrial radio]" on Slashdot yesterday. I guess he just figures we won't need to take money from all of the internet stations since they'll be able to grab more from the standard sources sooner or later.
1. Use a pencil to pop out all the keys on your Apple keyboard and rearrange them 2. Go to "international" in your systems preferences and add Dvorak U.S. to your languages list 3. Hit shift-option-space to switch between keyboard types 4. Profit!
Now I just need to find a decent free program for learning Dvorak typing in correct order...
Isn't that the point? He's saying that the basic problem here is that too much money is being spent on college campuses on bandwidth. So instead of trying to run some kind of strict enforcement, why not just limit bandwidth? After all, it's only an internet line for schoolwork, so it shouldn't be needed for anything more than the basics. At least, that's what this senator in question is saying, and thus his argument holds about as much water as a sieve.
This seems to be a reaction with a full lack of understanding about how campus internet works. If too much money is being spent on bandwidth, then why not simply save money by placing bandwidth limits on each student and limiting access to common bittorrent ports and the like, instead of spending money to create a task force? LOL politics~
Slashdot Mirror
From "Our candidate is totally not just like the last president!" to "Well, the other guy has betrayed his morals, too!" Also pathetic.
Yes, as one of his supporters, I am disappointed in his vote on this measure, and that is why I am one of many people who has called for him to change his vote on the measure. And yes, I am still going to vote for him, because on issues of maintaining the war, economy, health care, environment, and many other important facets of our government, he's the guy who's going to, y'know, be a change from the awful job that the last administration did, whereas his opponent is pretty much calling for more of the same.
That's not a hypocrisy - it's a recognition that our candidate isn't perfect, but that he's still pretty solid. As I said on the last post on the issue, most of the opposition here is coming from the Obama camp, from people who are voting for the candidate and thus want him to hear their opinions on the subject. The only people who see this as a serious dealbreaking issue are the McCain supporters who are looking for any bare ground they can gain, since their own candidate has lost pretty much any of the ground that they had to stand on as a "maverick" in the Senate. ...In which case, it's an even bigger hypocrisy.
Yes, exactly. Obama has built a campaign around the idea of changing the system, and so on this issue, his supporters want to know why he isn't taking a stand. No one is asking why McCain isn't taking a stand on this issue, because they all know that McCain fully supports Bush's policies in this area to begin with. Obama's supporters are pushing him to change his mind because they know that he is listening, even if he disagrees - and he directly responded to them with a statement earlier in the week apologizing that the issue just wasn't enough of a dealbreaker for him to keep fighting over. McCain, however, is Bush's bestest buddy now, and we know that everything involving the war with him is totally squeaky clean and there can't possibly be anything going wrong with our administration.
Y'know, McCain used to be the one with a campaign built around accountability and efficiency. It's too bad we don't have that McCain around anymore - that McCain might have actually lead the fight against this immunity. The current McCain, he's going to vote present on this issue, too.
But again, no one bothers questioning his opponent on this issue, because already they know how corrupt and unaccountable he's become.
You'll notice that none of the people who are angry at Obama over this scrap are trying to get McCain to change his position. For most of those people, it's because they support Obama. They don't consider their vote for him to be a waste, but they consider this move to be a bad decision. "If you vote for someone you don't really want to see in charge then you're screwing up the system." Well, these people want to see Obama in charge, and so they want him to hear what they think. Except for the real hypocrites here, of course: the McCain supporters, who look for any way to paint Obama as not being true to his message, while McCain has been flip-flopping so much in the past three months that he could almost try out for the U.S. Olympic gymnastics team.
So what are they doing now? They're doing kinda what you're supposed to be doing in a Democratic society. Rather than sitting around whining about the evils of the two parties, they mounting a strong campaign to let their selected nominee know that he is not representing their interests with this decision and are trying to get him to see the light. You know, they're participating in government. Rather than just putting in a vote for some libertarian candidate and saying, "Well, my guy didn't win, so you can't blame me," they're actually trying to change the landscape. That's what activists do, y'know - they're active.
To keep spouting this adolescent "lesser of two evils" crap is getting tiresome. In this election, there is A LOT OF FUCKING DIFFERENCE between the two candidates. There is a lot of difference in the way they want to run the war, there is a lot of difference in the way they want to run domestic issues. I apologize that Americans are still a bunch of sheep who can't get John Wayne or Eric Cartman or whoever your perfect candidate is supposed to be elected to the White House, but in this election, a vote for Obama against a vote for McCain is seriously going to mean something, and I'm sorry that the 25%-less-of-a-tool candidate that the DNC is running still isn't enough for your tastes.
Bush's reply has been something along the lines of, "There are men and women out there dying in Iraq. We need this bill to pass so that we can go back to making the world safe for our soldiers and our families. So please hurry up and make telephone companies immune from prosecution."
The major disconnect here has been that Bush has had plenty of opportunity to just sign the bill and go back to listening in on phone conversations. The fact that he has hung the entire bill on the passage of retroactive immunity has made it clear that he's either just fucking around and seriously doesn't care about what the military agenda is, or he's clearly got something to hide involving those phone companies. Either way, I'ma go make a bag of popcorn and wait to see what happens next.
He also walked into the city flanked by dancers waving palm trees and singing his praises, despite knowing that his life was in danger (which would have better encouraged sneaking into town). He once stated that he came to turn brother against brother, to start a fight over the true place of the world. He encouraged nonviolent resistance - such as, shaming your debtor by giving him both your outer and inner garment and walking home naked. Jesus was a pacifist, in that he believed that violence was not the answer, but he knew when to get involved. Interpret "turning over tables" as you wish.
As if anonymous is THAT organized.
But it still begs the question, how does the government expect to deal with internet content that comes in from foreign soil? Beyond that, are they planning to have some kind of task force independently hunting down adult material, or are they expecting concerned consumers to file complaints? Neither the article nor the ACMA website seems to address just how any of this is going to be dealt with.
I first read that as the "portal sorting machine." But then, if you had portals, you wouldn't need the USPS...
Here's the ironic side of this - the Democrats are pretty much in a lock to have the next White House, barring another extreme disaster that sends people running back to Big Brother again. All of these broad, sweeping changes for the power of the White House will only be partially in effect for Bush's term... and fully in effect for Obama or Clinton's term. The Democrats would like to thank the Republicans for giving them such broad power. (Not that I support either of them having it, mind you.)
I have to wonder if the massive rush couldn't have also been exacerbated by, say, lots of scalpers with computer programs set to flood the system and purchase as many tickets as possible on the very moment they became available.
Forgive the link to the liberal blogosphere, it was the first thing I came across:
As noted below, GOP Rep. Eric Cantor came up with a clever way of throwing a wrench into the FISA bill, which was scheduled to be voted on today and which is opposed by Republicans.
He threatened this afternoon to submit an amendment that would have mandated that nothing in the bill "shall be construed to prohibit the intelligence community from conducting surveillance needed to prevent Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or any other foreign terrorist organization...from attacking the United States or any United States person."
Though this language has no real legislative meaning, it nonetheless was effective in forcing Dems to yank the bill. That's because he introduced this in such a way that would have procedurally forced the bill to go back to committee and delayed it for an untold amount of time.
That left House Dem leaders scrambling today to figure out how to respond. And so, instead of letting this measure effectively scuttle the legislation, they decided to postpone the vote until next week in order to regroup and figure out how to proceed. "This legislative maneuvering by Republicans was a cynical attempt by Republicans to kill the bill," a senior House Dem aide griped to Election Central.
Granted, it was pretty spineless of the Dems to not call the GOP out more directly for trying to poison pill the bill and take a stand against such a silly amendment (and as someone who voted for one of those Democratic senator, I'm personally pretty pissed), but that doesn't mean the minority party doesn't have any tools at their disposal.
And the gameplay of Disgaea really isn't, well, weird. The storyline is. The characters are unique and the dialogue can be hilarious. The gameplay, however, can be summed up as, "Move next to a guy and hit him. And if any of your teammates are standing next to you, you get a bonus!" And by the way, the job system in that game is horrible - your boxer character has evolved into a... nother boxer character with the exact same moves! And now you get to go back and grind it back up from level 1 again! I've heard a lot of people hype Disgaea as the next big RPG series, but I've also met a handful of people who, like myself, just quit at a certain point and couldn't continue playing.
Your question reminds me of something I heard being discussed when I used to live in L.A. People were talking a lot about the continual expansions of the suburbs, how more and more people were moving out of the city to get away from the high rents, so they were building up more and more along the outer edges. However, all of those new buildings required new infrastructure - new roads, new water pipes, new electric lines. The concern was that in building all of that new infrastructure, it was cutting away from the city's budget to fix the current infrastructure already present in the older areas of the city, and thus a lot of older, poorer residential areas were getting the shaft. I'm not sure how fully relevant that is to your idea; it was just a topic that came to mind.
Right, there are a vast number of esoteric topics - known only by an esoteric group of people. If the people that know those topics aren't doing Wikipedia edits, then who will?
I can only imagine that giving a guy a nitrous oxide injection would result in... well, ever play Bioshock?
Actually, TFA points out that the biggest issue seems to be that the politicians involved are trying to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to be the leaders of a vast new public works project, but they don't actually want to fund those projects. So instead of putting together a comprehensive plan for creating and maintaining the wireless network, they just offer a particular private company a set fee to do it for them. Without a strong sense of oversight or purpose, the private company's projects never developed to the point of providing the same reliability or usefulness as a public facility. The article implies that if we want to really build a municipal network, then we're going to need to take the initiative to fully fund and operate the network at a public rather than a private level.
I'll tell you what it's become - it's become a world where values-free comics like Nextwave, Deadpool, and the Irredeemable Ant-Man are totally awesome. :D
I sympathize with that response, but on the other hand, these aren't real people. You'd think the embodiment of American ideals and values would be able to coherently define those ideals and values, y'know?
On one online comic forum I troll through, the majority of the readers are generally pissed off about Civil War. On the one hand, creating an effective pro-registration side meant essentially turning some superheroes evil. SHIELD shot first at Captain America - not for not wanting to register, but for not wanting to hunt down his old friends. And Iron Man lost all credibility he had in this encounter, including hiring former supervillians to start a false war with Atlantis, just to prove his point.
Problem is, all of the "good guys" weren't much better. Rather than actually providing solid arguments as to what they were opposing the government for, most of the superheroes just ran around shouting how bad the government is and smoking weed and putting flowers in their hair. The few times that Captain America had a moment in front of a reporter to explain his case, he just listed a bunch of hippie talking points, rather than actually talking about how the law could hurt superheroes, or even mentioning that SHIELD shot at him first.
Civil War could have been a chance to have some real commentary on modern issues, but it quickly devolved into just a chance for people to fight each other. There was no real discussion, no real logic, and Cap's sudden death just capped the whole thing off as being an attempt for controversy rather than any sort of political message.
In the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, the majority opinion stated that some speech should not be regulated no school time - like taking an actual stance on the marijuana debate. So, y'know, it should be all right that a school can issue disciplinary action for protected speech off of school grounds just as long as it's "disruptive."
In the Hein case, SCOTUS ruled that you could file a lawsuit against the executive branch for misusing funds for religious purposes, but you had to be a group deliberately passed over for funds in favor of a religious group solely on the basis of religious standing (which should be a very easy thing to prove, right?) Y'know, they left that door open.
In Gonzales v. Carhart, the SCOTUS ruled that law can restrict the use of a medical procedure as long as another procedure exists. So, y'know, it's not like you can just ban any medical procedure, just the ones where there's another way to do things.
You're not supposed to run ads that support or oppose a specific candidate right before an election. However, SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that if you run an ad that strongly supports a certain agenda, and hint that one politician doesn't support that agenda, that's actually kinda okay. I mean, it's not really about that politician. It's not like we actually gutted McCain-Feingold.
The 5-4 Ledbetter decision wasn't about the ability to sue your employer for sex discrimination. No, it was just about being late on your decision to sue. An employee didn't realize she was being consistently gypped on her pay scale, but when she'd finally realized it, she was told that she had to file a Title IX suit within 180 days of getting her paycheck. So, you know, as long as you figure out that you're getting screwed over fairly quickly, then you still have the right to sue.
And now, SCOTUS is saying, in a 5-4 decision, that there are some price floors that aren't so bad. Oh, sure, many price floors are still bad, and you can go ahead and try to get them ruled against. That option is open. But do you see a pattern here? I don't necessarily disagree with one or two of these decisions, but the reasoning that Chief Justice Roberts is continuing to employ seems very wishy-washy. He recognizes that harm potentially exists, but he doesn't see any problems with continually opening these loopholes. On the other hand, Scalia has no such qualms - he's been using his concurrent opinions to call for direct changes to precendent and to call Roberts a sissy for not having the guts to admit what impact his decisions are going to have.
We have so many "not that big a deal" cases being settled on thin margins. But little-deal cases can easily set precedent for bigger ones, especially in the lower appeals courts that defer to SCOTUS decisions. The question is, can you drive an 18-wheeler through this loophole decision?
John Simson of SoundExchange, the "non-profit" set up to collect internet radio royalties. Didn't I just hear this guy's name somewhere? Oh yeah, he was just mentioning how "The time comes that we really have to [start collecting royalties from terrestrial radio]" on Slashdot yesterday. I guess he just figures we won't need to take money from all of the internet stations since they'll be able to grab more from the standard sources sooner or later.
1. Use a pencil to pop out all the keys on your Apple keyboard and rearrange them
2. Go to "international" in your systems preferences and add Dvorak U.S. to your languages list
3. Hit shift-option-space to switch between keyboard types
4. Profit!
Now I just need to find a decent free program for learning Dvorak typing in correct order...
Isn't that the point? He's saying that the basic problem here is that too much money is being spent on college campuses on bandwidth. So instead of trying to run some kind of strict enforcement, why not just limit bandwidth? After all, it's only an internet line for schoolwork, so it shouldn't be needed for anything more than the basics. At least, that's what this senator in question is saying, and thus his argument holds about as much water as a sieve.
This seems to be a reaction with a full lack of understanding about how campus internet works. If too much money is being spent on bandwidth, then why not simply save money by placing bandwidth limits on each student and limiting access to common bittorrent ports and the like, instead of spending money to create a task force? LOL politics~
If your job was playing wow, do you honestly think you'd still enjoy it?
Lack of enjoyment hasn't stopped anyone else from playing, now has it? :D