While the Congressmen themselves generally don't read the entire document, that's why Congressmen have staff. The staff read the entire thing and inform their boss of the contents. Most Congressmen will read a portion as well. The only notable exception to this is when legislation like the Patriot act was rammed through and only one Senator had time to read the whole thing.
I absolutely agree. I live on Block Island, which is about 12 miles off the coast of Rhode Island. It tends to be nice and quiet out there even in the summer when tourists invade. You know someone is an islander out there when they know a storm is coming. We just know, there are tons of little signs- the wind starts coming directly from the west, the ocean's waves are a bit closer together, etc. I don't always consciously say "Ah, the wind is blowing from the west and those waves are close, a storm is coming!"
Do note that the professors receive practically nothing for the sale of textbooks. One of my CS professors said he received a mere $1 per textbook sold. The textbook cost me over $60.
Actually it is part of the CS curriculum, at least it is at RIT. In fact, design, requirements, code commenting, and CVS use are all required components of all CS courses.
While this may not be a nationwide trend, I'm sure more and more CS programs are beginning to instill these values into CS students.
While your post has been modded funny, I must respond to it because it runs with the general Slashdot mentality that corporations have a death grip on our government resulting in common day catastrophes thanks to big business malfeasance.
What you have stated in your post is referred to as a false dichtotomy. There are many options available to us, not just the two (quite poor) options you have given us to combat the problem of corporate influence on the government.
I would counter, however, that first of all corporate influence isn't necessarily a bad thing (although there are many cases in which it can be) and that corporations do not have the grip on government you and many others on Slashdot propose.
To go into my first point, that corporate influence isn't necessarily a bad thing, we must look at the way capitalism in a democracy operates. Sure, many on slashdot will merely say "Aha! Then it is capitalism that is the problem!" But read on, for it will show you why corporations have the influence that they have. A democracy is founded on the ideal that everyone has the right to influence the governing of their land. It does this, in America, mainly through voting and constitutional protections of freedoms. A business is an entity that deserves a right to speak as well. They ensure people have jobs and keep America a world economic leader. But wait, you say, corporations can donate much more than the average person can. Indeed they can, however the extra money really is not a problem because they do not get an actual vote. Ultimately it is the people who allow a politician to be influenced by a corporation by not voting that person out of office. Corporations often lobby politicians for causes that will benefit consumers by lowering the price of their goods. While there are often drawbacks, (mainly environmental or safety concerns) the government looks to the people to see whether or not it will take the pros with the cons in any particular piece of legislation.
And for my second point, government is not being bought by corporations. As I stated in my first point, politicians are elected by the people, not corporations. This allows the people to be the ultimate check on a politician. Any politician that is easily swayed by corporate "sponsorship" should be identified by the public and voted out of office. It isn't exactly hard to find such instances, as the politician does not need to be illegally bribed to be influenced by a corporation. All donations must be made public and the voting record of politicians is public as well. This allows for easy cross referencing to see which politicians actually represent the people. The common Slashdot answer is "But everyone who is running is a corporate pawn!" Incorrect! Sure they accept donations from companies, but that does not mean they will automatically vote for a bill the corporation sponsors. Anyone who believes all politicians are inclined to give a recipricol pat on the back is probably just thinking about how they would be in such a situation (in other words, highly unethical) Thus, the very people who call all politicians into question must be called into question themselves. But I will leave that for another post at another time.
Not to mention most of us who build computers find it enjoyable. So not only are we saving money, we are having a good time doing it! That's win-win if you ask me.
Agreed, Rational Rose is a gigantic piece of crap. I don't think I have ever seen so many dialogs to do simple tasks in my entire life. Does every little thing need a stupid dialog?
It has been ruled on many times by the Supreme Court. The main "exceptions" to freedom of speech are the following:
1. You have no right to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theatre if there is no fire. While true freedom of speech would allow you to say such things, you are not allowed to because it could incite panic and is not in the interest of the greater good.
2. The government can censor obscenity in certain mediums if it lacks serious "literary, artistic, political or scientific value." This is a more controversial one, but it is done.
3. "Prior restraint" - Obscenity sometimes falls under this catagory. In addition, reporting troop movements or locations in the way Geraldo Rivera did during the beginning of the Iraq war would fall under this catagory.
4. Libel. You can't say things about someone that are not true.
More importantly, to get back to your original point, the Government is in now way infringing upon our free speech by not ensuring everybody has internet to express their ideas. The government does not provide you with mediums to express your ideas, it merely allows you to utilize any medium available to do so.
In addition, if a library wishes to block sexual material it has every right to do so because on a public computer there is no explicit right to view obscenity or other vulgar items. Especially considering if these items were allowed, librarians would have to ensure that the users were over 18, and nobody under 18 was able to view what the person was doing on a computer. Ultimately it serves the public's best interest to block to offensive data rather than enter the rats nest of determining who is qualified to view it.
The fact that you would even criticize freedom of speech here is incredibly unbased. America's freedom of speech is longed for by much of the world, many people do not have the right to say whatever they want to, when they want to. Go live in Iran or China for some time if freedom of speech is so bad here.
As long as it is released it is no longer vaporware. Wired points out in one of its editions regarding vaporware that even if everyone thinks the item released is a gigantic piece of crap, it cannot be regarded as vaporware anymore.
Simply put, the article explains that the congressmen oppose it because we don't need more stealth spy satellites than we already have, especially not one that costs this much.
You are right that globalization means Americanization for the time being, but the rest of your post is dead wrong.
American values become a part of other cultures because America's culture is held in high esteem. Freedom and democracy hold lots of weight in the eyes of foreigners. America does not have to force its ideals on people, they openly accept them. Take fast food chains in Europe, for example. I have spent a good amount of time in Europe, and everyone I meet says how much they hate McDonalds, but they go there anyway. You see, Europeans in particular love to hate America. They say how much they hate McDonalds as they jam a big mac (or Royal, as it is called there) down their throat.
The same holds true for the rest of the world. The more people despise American values, the more they become a part of their culture. Just do a little research instead of spouting off your anti-americanism. Almost all the leading figures on globalization agree on this: Globalization makes it incredibly easy for cultures to adapt pieces of other cultures into their own. America's culture is looked highly upon because of its freedom and openness. Therefore it is the one that is often taken from right now. In the future it may be a different culture.
In the mean time, go research globalization while you eat fast food, listen to crappy MTV pop, and curse America.
First, the US has always been a profit driven country. That's what capitalism is about: Profits. The key is, has the drive for profits hurt the average citizen, and for the most part the answer is no.
However, everything works in cycles. The US had this problem with widespread worker abuse during the muckraking period of the late 1800s/early 1900s. This gradually was fixed by populist outrage and a movement to fix the situation. The same thing will happen now, if we stand up and fight for what we believe in.
Some posters here have even suggested the only way to fix the problem is with guns. Simply look at history. These problems are fixed when a certain point of outrage is reached. This tipping point forces politicians to either change their ways, or be forced out of office. It has happened before, it will happen again.
Slashdot is full of the notion that politicians routinely cow to corporate interests over the common good of the people. While true in some cases, it is unfair to stereotype the politican as a greedy malfeasant who only wants what is best for his corporate donors. This is true for some politicians, and we must target them. By lumping them all together, we end up taking down the good with the bad.
As a college freshman at RIT, I can tell you first hand that people here still do not think their vote counts. That is, if they are not from a swing state. I didn't meet one person who was from a swing state who didn't vote, but I met numerous from the state's that were considered to be "taken" by one candidate or the other.
Students just felt that it was a waste of time voting in these states. It's hard to convince them to take the time when the winner is essentially decided. They don't get it that they are contributing to the popular vote, making their opinion known, and helping to ensure there is no upset in that state. Unfortunately nobody is sending these messages over the media. All students hear is "Vote or Die," and "Rock the vote," which came here and perpetuated the feeling that both sides just talk and talk, but never listen by having two large sheets of paper where people could write their opinions. There was a Kerry paper and a Bush paper, and all that came out of it was how much Bush sucks, or how much Kerry flip-flops, or how there is no paper for Nader and that Rock the Vote perpetuates a two party system.
What the young need is a new approach to get them to vote. One that emphasizes how much their vote counts, rather than how cool it is to vote, or how P-Diddy and his gang of thugs will kill you if you don't vote. The big names and celebrities should still be involved, they are great at getting a message out to people, however they need to reform their message to one that more accurately addresses the reasons young people do not vote.
A poll with a 95% confidence level, such as this one, can still be off 1 in 20 times. It may not seem like that is likely, but this is probably what happened. It is not unheard of for a poll to be slightly wrong or even way off the mark.
It's actually huge news that The Economist endorsed Kerry. The Economist tends to side with Republicans, supports free trade and globalized economies, and businesses.
I was shocked to see The Economist supporting Kerry, as it generally gave fair marks to the President on most issues (and this is addressed in the endorsement quite well).
The fact that The Economist is vehemently in support of fiscal responsibility is also an important issue.
Give the bias issue a break. It's a typical conservative trump card when they want control of the media. If the media has any articles at all that don't fully support Republicans they cry bias. Stop whining about bias, it has never been true and still isn't. The articles just go on the facts, and that should be a suggestion regarding the feasibility and logic behind your ideals.
Did you ever consider that the signs may be reminders? They are running an election, something that is way too important to screw up. People make mistakes, sometimes even smart people make stupid and seemingly obvious mistakes. The signs serve to ensure that these mistakes do not happen, because elections cannot be redone. It needs to be done correctly the first time.
You are way off. The poor often work long hours at low wage jobs. The myth that people are poor because they are jobless has come out of the Reagan welfare queen mantra that just isn't true. Yes there are plenty of jobless poor, but they pale in comparison to the number of poor people who have 1, 2, even 3 jobs and barely get bread on the table. The middle class, on the other hand, tend to have a fairly steady 40 hour work week.
The second line says: [Bush will] Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits.
Now, last time I checked, Social Security was a fairly big issue.
You said:
He said he will do all that is humanly possible and necessary to make certain that terrorists never strike again on U.S. soil.
Can anyone deny that President Bush has not delivered? America the terrorists' No. 1 target has recovered from its tragic wounds and rebounded. It remains safe to this day.
Terrorist attacks on U.S. soil are rare. Take a look at this timeline, which seems relatively complete. Find the ones on U.S. soil. It turns out that there's only 5: 1920 1975 1993 1995 2001. So there may or may not be any statistical change in the past four years -- we wouldn't know; the sample size is too small. This is a totally unfounded assertion.
I was going to stop, but this article is too hilarious.
If you read the article instead of immediately attempted to guess what the author may have wanted to convey, you would realize that the author is criticizing Bush for not capturing Bin Laden. The author is saying that America is hardly safer from terrorist attacks than it was before 9/11 if Bin Laden is not captured and Al Qaeda is not destroyed.
You continue to do this throughout your analysis of the article. It is imperative that you actually read the article rather than attempt to guess what the author is trying to say. The author writes down exactly what you need to know. There is no need to go guessing, and then start rebutting your guesses.
Face it, the Bush administration has a long list of failings that have no rebuttle. You can complain about the article all you want, but the underlying facts remain the same:
Bush's social security plan could easily undermine the entire system and is guarenteed to increase the deficit by enormous proportions
The Iraq war was not necessary. Allow me to repeat what has been said by Kerry and Edwards: Iraq has no connection to Al Qaeda. Not to mention Cheney and Bush decieved the American people on numerous counts- The yellowcake, aluminum tubes, and the exagerations of Iraq's WMD capabilities. The only truth they told was that Saddam attacked the Kurds in the 80s.
Just FYI, the New York times posted a similar article to what Fox news has. Just so you know. You know, so you don't accuse the NY times of any bias. Funny, though, that Fox news doesn't have any article critical of the Bush administration in regards to the aluminum tubes.
Slashdot Mirror
While the Congressmen themselves generally don't read the entire document, that's why Congressmen have staff. The staff read the entire thing and inform their boss of the contents. Most Congressmen will read a portion as well.
The only notable exception to this is when legislation like the Patriot act was rammed through and only one Senator had time to read the whole thing.
I absolutely agree. I live on Block Island, which is about 12 miles off the coast of Rhode Island. It tends to be nice and quiet out there even in the summer when tourists invade. You know someone is an islander out there when they know a storm is coming. We just know, there are tons of little signs- the wind starts coming directly from the west, the ocean's waves are a bit closer together, etc. I don't always consciously say "Ah, the wind is blowing from the west and those waves are close, a storm is coming!"
Do note that the professors receive practically nothing for the sale of textbooks. One of my CS professors said he received a mere $1 per textbook sold. The textbook cost me over $60.
I bet the Phantom will be next.
Wait, no.
One bad thing about Magnatune: The list of artists is horribly short.
Nonetheless, they do have a good idea with providing multiple formats.
And the end user as well.
Actually it is part of the CS curriculum, at least it is at RIT. In fact, design, requirements, code commenting, and CVS use are all required components of all CS courses.
While this may not be a nationwide trend, I'm sure more and more CS programs are beginning to instill these values into CS students.
While your post has been modded funny, I must respond to it because it runs with the general Slashdot mentality that corporations have a death grip on our government resulting in common day catastrophes thanks to big business malfeasance.
What you have stated in your post is referred to as a false dichtotomy. There are many options available to us, not just the two (quite poor) options you have given us to combat the problem of corporate influence on the government.
I would counter, however, that first of all corporate influence isn't necessarily a bad thing (although there are many cases in which it can be) and that corporations do not have the grip on government you and many others on Slashdot propose.
To go into my first point, that corporate influence isn't necessarily a bad thing, we must look at the way capitalism in a democracy operates. Sure, many on slashdot will merely say "Aha! Then it is capitalism that is the problem!" But read on, for it will show you why corporations have the influence that they have. A democracy is founded on the ideal that everyone has the right to influence the governing of their land. It does this, in America, mainly through voting and constitutional protections of freedoms. A business is an entity that deserves a right to speak as well. They ensure people have jobs and keep America a world economic leader. But wait, you say, corporations can donate much more than the average person can. Indeed they can, however the extra money really is not a problem because they do not get an actual vote. Ultimately it is the people who allow a politician to be influenced by a corporation by not voting that person out of office. Corporations often lobby politicians for causes that will benefit consumers by lowering the price of their goods. While there are often drawbacks, (mainly environmental or safety concerns) the government looks to the people to see whether or not it will take the pros with the cons in any particular piece of legislation.
And for my second point, government is not being bought by corporations. As I stated in my first point, politicians are elected by the people, not corporations. This allows the people to be the ultimate check on a politician. Any politician that is easily swayed by corporate "sponsorship" should be identified by the public and voted out of office. It isn't exactly hard to find such instances, as the politician does not need to be illegally bribed to be influenced by a corporation. All donations must be made public and the voting record of politicians is public as well. This allows for easy cross referencing to see which politicians actually represent the people. The common Slashdot answer is "But everyone who is running is a corporate pawn!" Incorrect! Sure they accept donations from companies, but that does not mean they will automatically vote for a bill the corporation sponsors. Anyone who believes all politicians are inclined to give a recipricol pat on the back is probably just thinking about how they would be in such a situation (in other words, highly unethical) Thus, the very people who call all politicians into question must be called into question themselves. But I will leave that for another post at another time.
Not to mention most of us who build computers find it enjoyable. So not only are we saving money, we are having a good time doing it! That's win-win if you ask me.
While your description is indeed interesting, it is completely wrong.
The computer actually contains roughly 15 pre-teen girls stuffed in a box who give their opinions on music.
Agreed, Rational Rose is a gigantic piece of crap. I don't think I have ever seen so many dialogs to do simple tasks in my entire life. Does every little thing need a stupid dialog?
It has been ruled on many times by the Supreme Court. The main "exceptions" to freedom of speech are the following:
1. You have no right to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theatre if there is no fire. While true freedom of speech would allow you to say such things, you are not allowed to because it could incite panic and is not in the interest of the greater good.
2. The government can censor obscenity in certain mediums if it lacks serious "literary, artistic, political or scientific value." This is a more controversial one, but it is done.
3. "Prior restraint" - Obscenity sometimes falls under this catagory. In addition, reporting troop movements or locations in the way Geraldo Rivera did during the beginning of the Iraq war would fall under this catagory.
4. Libel. You can't say things about someone that are not true.
More importantly, to get back to your original point, the Government is in now way infringing upon our free speech by not ensuring everybody has internet to express their ideas. The government does not provide you with mediums to express your ideas, it merely allows you to utilize any medium available to do so.
In addition, if a library wishes to block sexual material it has every right to do so because on a public computer there is no explicit right to view obscenity or other vulgar items. Especially considering if these items were allowed, librarians would have to ensure that the users were over 18, and nobody under 18 was able to view what the person was doing on a computer. Ultimately it serves the public's best interest to block to offensive data rather than enter the rats nest of determining who is qualified to view it.
The fact that you would even criticize freedom of speech here is incredibly unbased. America's freedom of speech is longed for by much of the world, many people do not have the right to say whatever they want to, when they want to. Go live in Iran or China for some time if freedom of speech is so bad here.
As long as it is released it is no longer vaporware. Wired points out in one of its editions regarding vaporware that even if everyone thinks the item released is a gigantic piece of crap, it cannot be regarded as vaporware anymore.
Simply put, the article explains that the congressmen oppose it because we don't need more stealth spy satellites than we already have, especially not one that costs this much.
You are right that globalization means Americanization for the time being, but the rest of your post is dead wrong.
American values become a part of other cultures because America's culture is held in high esteem. Freedom and democracy hold lots of weight in the eyes of foreigners. America does not have to force its ideals on people, they openly accept them. Take fast food chains in Europe, for example. I have spent a good amount of time in Europe, and everyone I meet says how much they hate McDonalds, but they go there anyway. You see, Europeans in particular love to hate America. They say how much they hate McDonalds as they jam a big mac (or Royal, as it is called there) down their throat.
The same holds true for the rest of the world. The more people despise American values, the more they become a part of their culture. Just do a little research instead of spouting off your anti-americanism. Almost all the leading figures on globalization agree on this: Globalization makes it incredibly easy for cultures to adapt pieces of other cultures into their own. America's culture is looked highly upon because of its freedom and openness. Therefore it is the one that is often taken from right now. In the future it may be a different culture.
In the mean time, go research globalization while you eat fast food, listen to crappy MTV pop, and curse America.
First, the US has always been a profit driven country. That's what capitalism is about: Profits. The key is, has the drive for profits hurt the average citizen, and for the most part the answer is no.
However, everything works in cycles. The US had this problem with widespread worker abuse during the muckraking period of the late 1800s/early 1900s. This gradually was fixed by populist outrage and a movement to fix the situation. The same thing will happen now, if we stand up and fight for what we believe in.
Some posters here have even suggested the only way to fix the problem is with guns. Simply look at history. These problems are fixed when a certain point of outrage is reached. This tipping point forces politicians to either change their ways, or be forced out of office. It has happened before, it will happen again.
Slashdot is full of the notion that politicians routinely cow to corporate interests over the common good of the people. While true in some cases, it is unfair to stereotype the politican as a greedy malfeasant who only wants what is best for his corporate donors. This is true for some politicians, and we must target them. By lumping them all together, we end up taking down the good with the bad.
Just a quick note... there is no CPA anymore. It was dissolved with the introduction of the transitional Iraqi government headed by Dr. Allawi.
Bremer's position of CPA administrator was dissolved and replaced with an ambassador to Iraq. That position is being filled by John Negroponte.
As a college freshman at RIT, I can tell you first hand that people here still do not think their vote counts. That is, if they are not from a swing state. I didn't meet one person who was from a swing state who didn't vote, but I met numerous from the state's that were considered to be "taken" by one candidate or the other.
Students just felt that it was a waste of time voting in these states. It's hard to convince them to take the time when the winner is essentially decided. They don't get it that they are contributing to the popular vote, making their opinion known, and helping to ensure there is no upset in that state. Unfortunately nobody is sending these messages over the media. All students hear is "Vote or Die," and "Rock the vote," which came here and perpetuated the feeling that both sides just talk and talk, but never listen by having two large sheets of paper where people could write their opinions. There was a Kerry paper and a Bush paper, and all that came out of it was how much Bush sucks, or how much Kerry flip-flops, or how there is no paper for Nader and that Rock the Vote perpetuates a two party system.
What the young need is a new approach to get them to vote. One that emphasizes how much their vote counts, rather than how cool it is to vote, or how P-Diddy and his gang of thugs will kill you if you don't vote. The big names and celebrities should still be involved, they are great at getting a message out to people, however they need to reform their message to one that more accurately addresses the reasons young people do not vote.
A poll with a 95% confidence level, such as this one, can still be off 1 in 20 times. It may not seem like that is likely, but this is probably what happened. It is not unheard of for a poll to be slightly wrong or even way off the mark.
It's actually huge news that The Economist endorsed Kerry. The Economist tends to side with Republicans, supports free trade and globalized economies, and businesses.
I was shocked to see The Economist supporting Kerry, as it generally gave fair marks to the President on most issues (and this is addressed in the endorsement quite well).
The fact that The Economist is vehemently in support of fiscal responsibility is also an important issue.
Give the bias issue a break. It's a typical conservative trump card when they want control of the media. If the media has any articles at all that don't fully support Republicans they cry bias. Stop whining about bias, it has never been true and still isn't. The articles just go on the facts, and that should be a suggestion regarding the feasibility and logic behind your ideals.
Did you ever consider that the signs may be reminders? They are running an election, something that is way too important to screw up. People make mistakes, sometimes even smart people make stupid and seemingly obvious mistakes. The signs serve to ensure that these mistakes do not happen, because elections cannot be redone. It needs to be done correctly the first time.
You are way off. The poor often work long hours at low wage jobs. The myth that people are poor because they are jobless has come out of the Reagan welfare queen mantra that just isn't true. Yes there are plenty of jobless poor, but they pale in comparison to the number of poor people who have 1, 2, even 3 jobs and barely get bread on the table. The middle class, on the other hand, tend to have a fairly steady 40 hour work week.
The second line says:
[Bush will] Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits.
Now, last time I checked, Social Security was a fairly big issue.
You said: If you read the article instead of immediately attempted to guess what the author may have wanted to convey, you would realize that the author is criticizing Bush for not capturing Bin Laden. The author is saying that America is hardly safer from terrorist attacks than it was before 9/11 if Bin Laden is not captured and Al Qaeda is not destroyed.
You continue to do this throughout your analysis of the article. It is imperative that you actually read the article rather than attempt to guess what the author is trying to say. The author writes down exactly what you need to know. There is no need to go guessing, and then start rebutting your guesses.
Face it, the Bush administration has a long list of failings that have no rebuttle. You can complain about the article all you want, but the underlying facts remain the same:
Bush's social security plan could easily undermine the entire system and is guarenteed to increase the deficit by enormous proportions
The Iraq war was not necessary. Allow me to repeat what has been said by Kerry and Edwards: Iraq has no connection to Al Qaeda. Not to mention Cheney and Bush decieved the American people on numerous counts- The yellowcake, aluminum tubes, and the exagerations of Iraq's WMD capabilities. The only truth they told was that Saddam attacked the Kurds in the 80s.
Bring a whole new level of dishonesty and idiocy to the White House.
Just FYI, the New York times posted a similar article to what Fox news has. Just so you know. You know, so you don't accuse the NY times of any bias. Funny, though, that Fox news doesn't have any article critical of the Bush administration in regards to the aluminum tubes.
Now that is bias if you ask me.