Actually, BeOS was in my mind as I wrote this. It received huge buzz in the late 90's and I installed it. However, my opinion is that, as a whole, it wasn't any better then Windows 98. It offered some things that were better, and some that were worse. It was a long time ago, but my impression was "I'd like to see their next version." Unfortunately, that never happened.
I love my tivo. But Tivo is not an example of users "smartening up" to use Linux, it's an example of a linux "dumbing down" to the level of the average users. In fact, Tivo is a wonderful illustration of my post.
When I got my Tivo all I had to do was plug it in and it started working. The interface is a well thought out GUI, and I don't have to do anything but use my Tivo. I never give a thought to what's happening under the hood.
Actually, I meant that I wasn't around in the beginning, when slashdot first started to become popular. I realize now that it's ambiguous, but luckily there's people like you to point out such insignificant issues so I can correct them.
I'm sure that Apple and Microsoft would gladly conceed the 500 super computers on that list--that most of the people in the world have never seen, or even heard of--in exchange for the 500 million PCs and Servers. While I wouldn't call the supercomputers "underground" I *would* call them "obscure"
I've been a slashdotter for a long time. Not a beginner, but certainly not a newbie. Check out my number.
When I found this place I didn't even know how to SAY linux. I said it "LINE-ix."
Over the past 6 or 7 years I've heard a ton of predictions about linux breaking into the home market. A million reasons have been given, and later, a million excuses.
I use linux lightly in my (development) job. I'm occassionaly tasked to do website stuff and all of our webservers run LAMP.
I enjoy using it. Partly because I'm an elitist prick who likes things that other people don't know much about. Also because it's sort of straight-forward. Things are a heirarchy, not an unorganized collection of windows, tabs, dialogs, and buttons.
I enjoy windows, as well. I make a living developing windows software. And there is absolutely no question in my mind that for the huge portion of users, Windows is a superior platform to Linux. If for no other reason then it's actually USABLE by mortals.
My point in this is not to make 1000 people hate me. My point is that SOMEONE needs to do to linux what NeXT/Apple has done to BSD.
Yes, I know that Linux has shells, but these are after-thoughts. They don't come close to the experience of OSX or even Windows XP.
If all the OSS guys HATE microsoft so much, and they think Microsoft sucks so badly, then why the hell can't they build an OS that is actually able to beat windows at its own game?
The strength of Linux is in it's stable and secure kernel and low-level "plumbing." The same as BSD. An OS that includes a "Windows" experience on top of this solid foundation would for teh first time attract real attention and a real user base.
I know this isn't easy, but look at all the time you've had. People slam MSFT for taking 6 years to put out a consumer OS. How is it better to take six years to NOT put out a consumer OS?
Right now Linux is like a Hamm Radio. Adored by hobbyists but foreign to the public. Everyone has a radio, but it's closed-source. They can't tinker with it. They can't do much at all, except press its buttons and turn its dials. The Hamm operators know that their setup is superior, but that's a fact that's lost on the population as a whole.
I would LOVE to have a real alternative to Windows. But I don't. Maybe I never will, at least not in the form of linux. But the way people grasp linux with religious fervor makes me wonder why they don't do what it takes to actually build it into a windows-killer.
Maybe linux-devs and linux-fans really don't want to supplant Windows. As crazy as that sounds, I think it has some merit. What I'm suggesting is that you work to "dumb down" linux a bit. Build a linux that appeals to the novice. But I think the linux camp is waiting for the novices to "smarten up" and adopt linux. I just don't think that's ever going to happen.
Before you slam me, understand that I'm advocating linux. Yes, I'm criticizing the Linux community, but I'm doing it because I (somewhat) agree with the goals of that community.
I would love to see a world where Windows has a 75% market share.
FWIW, there's a registry setting for high-color/true-color in 2000 Server Terminal services. I'm not sure, but i think it's under HKLM > Sys > CurrCtrlSet > Term Server > WinStations. Something like that.
Of course the average user only uses 10% of {Excel|Word|VisualStudio|Etc}'s features. The problem, as developers should very well know, is that everyone uses a different 10%.
Sorry you're so upset about my good karma. Maybe next time you'll contribute to a discussion instead of dissecting a post for the sole purpose of criticizing the moderators. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you meant when you said "in what sense is this post informative?"
I'll tell you how it's informative. It informs people like yourself, who have never walked a foot on Chinese soil, that China is not nearly as repressive as most Americans--yourself included--believe. The fact that you've bought in so completely to the myth of a "china syndrome" of oppression and persecution is evidence that you should try to do a little more free-thinking.
The vast majority of Chinese citizens never encounter their government's law enforcement officers. The vast majority of Chinese citizens practicing religion do so peacefully; not in underground churches but right out in the open, under the nose of the Communist party. And they do so without incident.
The only time a parishioner is arrested or "persecuted" is when they blur the lines of religion and politics; when they claim that their allegiance to their chosen beliefs is greater then their allegiance to the party and the state. These are the people who are attempting to use religion to advance their political agenda, which is usually an attempt to "westernize" China. These people would be arrested for their activism even if they were atheists.
The U.S. government is very good at manipulating people. The shortest distance between civil liberty and oppression is fear. They make you so afraid of [place_holder] that you're willing to do what they say, to sacrifice what they ask, give what they demand, and do so quietly. From the day that we became a "super power" our government has been telling us to be afraid of someone. It was never like this before. Just 10 short years earlier the idiom was "Nothing to fear but fear itself." History says we won that war but soon after our culture began to change. It soon became "Nothing to fear but... the soviets" and eventually a more general "Nothing to fear but the communists" and now "Nothing to fear but China|Osama|SARS|Democrats|Hezbollah|ShoeBombs|Ant hrax|AIDS|TheGays(TM)|TheUN|DirtyBombs|Iran|AxisOf Evil|KimJongIl|and, oh yea, FearItself"
And you sir have bought part and parcel into this. "Peaches and Cream" and "Scorched Earth" are metaphors. Trying to look intellectually-superior by literally interpreting a metaphor wasn't very well thought out. It made you look like you missed your sixth grade class on simile and other figures of speech. I suggest next time you don't try so hard to look smart. It just draws attention to the fact that you're not.
Then why has it went up 5 out of the 6 years of the GWB presidency? The congress is the control group in this case.
Besides, the President has just as much authority over the budget as the Congress. The budget starts at the Presidents desk and it ends up at the presidents desk. And if he doesn't like what the congress did with it during the interim, he doesn't have to sign it into law. I'm sure you remember the government shutdowns caused by Clintons refusal to accept the GOP budget drafts. The budget doesn't become the budget without both branches' approval.
Exactly. This guy has no clue. He's seen some western news coverage of religious persecution in China and has assumed that it's something that happens every day. Pure FUD. He's been raised in a "Stop those commie bastards" environment and he's bought in with every last cent.
The Chineese gov't is not peaches and creme. But it's not the scorched earth hell that so many Americans believe.
No, I'm just willing to accept the fact that nobody reports on the peaceful religious services in China that happen every single day. Yes, there is religious persecution in china. I didn't say there wasn't.
However, you said that there isn't any religion in china. And you are wrong. It's as simple as that. And catholocism is one of the SMALLER religions in the country.
You're buying in to the "China is te devil" FUD and you're not willing to look at both sides of the coin.
WTF is up with all the trolling on "religeous fundamentalism" lately? I mean, space travel is about as far away as you can get from a hot-button issue for the religious conservatives! If anything, perhaps you should be congratulating our "fundie supporting president" for raising NASA's budget [whitehouse.gov] rather than reducing it like our previous bleeding heart liberal president [newsmax.com] did.
As far as I can figure it, the new troll is:
1. Claim that the "religious fundies" are responsible for all the world's woes. 2. Get modded up because the liberal Slashdotters immediately agree with the words "religeous fundamentalist", no matter how stupid. 3. ??? 4. Profit!
Why would it be any easier to relearn the menus then it would be to learn the ribbon? In both cases we're talking a simple hierarchy. The argument is that power users know where to look.
A menu reorganization would be just as disruptive to power uses as the ribbon.
WTF is up with all the trolling on "religeous fundamentalism" lately? I mean, space travel is about as far away as you can get from a hot-button issue for the religious conservatives! If anything, perhaps you should be congratulating our "fundie supporting president" for raising NASA's budget [whitehouse.gov] rather than reducing it like our previous bleeding heart liberal president [newsmax.com] did.
As far as I can figure it, the new troll is:
1. Claim that the "religious fundies" are responsible for all the world's woes. 2. Get modded up because the liberal Slashdotters immediately agree with the words "religeous fundamentalist", no matter how stupid. 3. ??? 4. Profit!
Because the bus doesn't give change, so a lot of people just drop $2 in the slot. My guess is that half of all riders do this. That adds up very quick.
First, you claim "study after study" but you posted ONE STUDY.
Second, you posted the same link that someone else did. After reading the study, I replied to him with this post, cut and pasted here for your enjoyment:
Did you actually read your study? If you did, I think you should sharpen those reading comprihension skills.
Let's take a look, shall we?
1) This study was done on NON-LIMITED ACCESS ROADS. That means it was not done on the interstate highway system. Considering this thread was about the interstates, this isn't an apples to apples comparison. To wit: "The objectives of this research was to determine the effects of raising and lowering posted speed limits on driver behavior and accidents for non-limited access rural and urban highways." and also "the major emphasis of this research is on streets and highways that were posted between 20 and 55 mi/h"
2) This study concludes that lowering the speed limit increases accidents. Consider that for a moment. Law abiding citizens adjusted their speed to the new, lower speed limit. However the majority of (law breaking) citizens did not decrease their speed, causing a larged disparity between the fastest and slowest drivers on a given road. Once again, you're blaming the citizens that follow the speed limit for this when you should be blaming the citizens that were breaking the law.
3) No allowance given to habit. If I lived near a testing site and I always drove 65 down the 55mph road I'm not likely to change my speed when the study starts. First, I might not be aware of the speed change for some time after the beginning of the study. Second, it's my observation that most of us drive by "feel." That is, I'm not likely to monitor my speedometer while driving unless prompted by a slow or fast moving vehicle or law enforcement. This prevents the study from illustrating what would happen over a long period of time, say 20 years, during which the people driving on the road daily "cycles" due to death, relocation, reaching legal driving age, etc.
4) Upper Bounds of Speed Increases. As stated, the emphasis of this study is on roads with limits between 20 and 55mph. The maximum increases tested by the study are were +15mph. I couldn't find any specific information on site increases, but it's my guess that they didn't turn many non-divided country roads into 70MpH raceways. It seems to me most likely that the 15mph increases were reserved for the routes with slower speeds at the beginning of the study. Even if I am incorrect, this study is not applicable to the interstate system, the majority of which already operates at 65Mph or higher. There is a difference between a max posted speed of 65 (55Mph originally plus 10MpH adjustment) and a max speed of 80 (65mph plus a 15mph adjustment)
Incidentally, there are a number of factual and typographical errors in the report that piqued my interest. An example:
"Vehicles with a length less than 20 ft (5.1 m) were classified as short vehicles. Vehicles greater than 20 ft (6.1 m) in length were classified as short vehicles. " There are a number of problems with this statement. First, the number of meters in 20 feet change from one sentence to the next. Second, both groups are classified as "short" despite what I deduce as the intention of the sentence.
In conclusion, this study is not very applicable to our discussion. You should probably read these things for their CONTENT and not just for the parts that back up whatever point you're trying to make.
So, there's my proof. Would you like to eat your crow now or should I put it in a doggy-bag?
Did you actually read your study? If you did, I think you should sharpen those reading comprihension skills.
Let's take a look, shall we?
1) This study was done on NON-LIMITED ACCESS ROADS. That means it was not done on the interstate highway system. Considering this thread was about the interstates, this isn't an apples to apples comparison. To wit: "The objectives of this research was to determine the effects of raising and lowering posted speed limits on driver behavior and accidents for non-limited access rural and urban highways." and also "the major emphasis of this research is on streets and highways that were posted between 20 and 55 mi/h"
2) This study concludes that lowering the speed limit increases accidents. Consider that for a moment. Law abiding citizens adjusted their speed to the new, lower speed limit. However the majority of (law breaking) citizens did not decrease their speed, causing a larged disparity between the fastest and slowest drivers on a given road. Once again, you're blaming the citizens that follow the speed limit for this when you should be blaming the citizens that were breaking the law.
3) No allowance given to habit. If I lived near a testing site and I always drove 65 down the 55mph road I'm not likely to change my speed when the study starts. First, I might not be aware of the speed change for some time after the beginning of the study. Second, it's my observation that most of us drive by "feel." That is, I'm not likely to monitor my speedometer while driving unless prompted by a slow or fast moving vehicle or law enforcement. This prevents the study from illustrating what would happen over a long period of time, say 20 years, during which the people driving on the road daily "cycles" due to death, relocation, reaching legal driving age, etc.
4) Upper Bounds of Speed Increases. As stated, the emphasis of this study is on roads with limits between 20 and 55mph. The maximum increases tested by the study are were +15mph. I couldn't find any specific information on site increases, but it's my guess that they didn't turn many non-divided country roads into 70MpH raceways. It seems to me most likely that the 15mph increases were reserved for the routes with slower speeds at the beginning of the study. Even if I am incorrect, this study is not applicable to the interstate system, the majority of which already operates at 65Mph or higher. There is a difference between a max posted speed of 65 (55Mph originally plus 10MpH adjustment) and a max speed of 80 (65mph plus a 15mph adjustment)
Incidentally, there are a number of factual and typographical errors in the report that piqued my interest. An example:
"Vehicles with a length less than 20 ft (5.1 m) were classified as short vehicles. Vehicles greater than 20 ft (6.1 m) in length were classified as short vehicles. " There are a number of problems with this statement. First, the number of meters in 20 feet change from one sentence to the next. Second, both groups are classified as "short" despite what I deduce as the intention of the sentence.
In conclusion, this study is not very applicable to our discussion. You should probably read these things for their CONTENT and not just for the parts that back up whatever point you're trying to make.
So, there's my proof. Would you like to eat your crow now or should I put it in a doggy-bag?
By the way, I'm not being "haughty" about parenting. In fact, I'm not even sure that "Haughty" makes any sense when used in this way. Haughty means "proud" and it wasn't really abourt pride. It was about the fact that over the next 20 years of your life, you're likely to grow and change in ways you don't yet realize.
C'mon, man, let's for a single moment accept your argument as true. That means that over the next 20 years of your life, as you experience life and maybe even raise children, that you won't learn anything, that you won't gain any new perspective, that your opinions won't grow in any way.
I'm sorry that you feel the injustice of a world that doesn't take the word of a 22 year old as gospel. You're basically still a child. I know it must frusterate you to no end to hear that, but it does happen to be true. Five years ago you were still your parents responsibility. You have been in control of your own destiny for such a pittifully small amount of time that you don't even know what you don't know.
In twenty years you WILL grow. You WILL mature. You WILL look back at your 22 year-old self as what you actually are. A child. With childish behavior.
You can accept today that people 20 years older then you have 20 years of more experience, or you can just wait 20 years and see for yourself. But nevermind, I'm sure you'll be fine. After all, you're an Uncle. You have coworkers with children. You're basically a Senior Citizen! Let me call my alma matter and insist you be made an honorary PhD!
You're opinions are about as enlightened as your average high school student. Step down from your horse and look around. You'd be surprised how much you can learn that way.
I suppose I'm preaching to the choir though (man, using that term is ironic) after all, you already know everything.
If you didn't fit so nicely into the "know it all brat" category this wouldn't be so easy for me, but really, you are their poster boy after this thread.
"the word "god" in both cases is known to be an implicit reference to the christian god"
This is what your agument amounts to. Unfortunately, the law doesn't work that way. Nothing is implied.
The government has made no law concerning the establishment or promotion of religion. Religion can be seperated from God (see: scientology) and God can be seperated from Religion (See: In God We Trust).
When you convince me that religion is the same as God, and that "God" promotes a RELIGION, then I will believe you. But you've got a lot of convincing to do.
By the way, I love the sig. You should go look up "arrogance." It actually has nothing to do with the meaning you give it. But you're not too concerened with the way things ACTUALLY are. Not that I mind. Yuo can proclaim your ignorance to every/.'er and I promise you, there's nothing I will do to stop you.
If you've been debating this for 8 years then you MUST have at least a somewhat convincing argument.
No, "under god" et al are only unconstitutional according to YOUR INTERPRETATION of the lemon decision. If the court had ruled on these things, there would be no further debate. The only debate would be whether or not to change the constitution.
The Establishment clause was designed to prevent a state-sanctioned church. Using the word "God" does *NOT* promote one religion over another. If it said "In catholicism we trust" it would be different.
I was alive during Kurtzman. I remember the case well. It, along with Tinker and Hazelwood were a very big deal. When the court rules that "Under God" is unconstitutional, then it will be removed. Until then, deal with it.
You consider this a violation of your rights? Hearing the word "God" is a violation of your rights? Why don't you talk to some people who have REALLY had their rights violated and see what they think about your "under god" problem. ESPECIALLY considering that most people--our Congress and Court included--don't consider this to be 'supporting religion'
"do you think atheists objection to "under god" in the pledge is nonsense?"
I missed this one. Yes, this is nonsense. You live in a country that was founded by people looking for religious freedom. Sorry about your luck. Many countries have a state-sanctioned church. In America all you have to deal with is "Under God" and "In God We Trust." Learn to deal with it.
If I'm a bigot because I don't care that the pledge contains a reference to God, then I guess I'm just a bigot in your eyes. You're mister "accept everyone for who they are" why can't you accept that some people see this subject different then you. You're allowed to label people but nobody else is? Puh-leese.
You mean the Boy Scouts of America isn't a utopia of acceptance, love, peace, joy, and salvation? Why didn't someone tell me sooner!
Do you have any idea of the values that BSA teaches it's scouts? All you seem to know is the news accounts you read. Some gay scout master somewhere prohibited to participate. Do you think that the kids are involved with that? Do you think the kids leave their meetings and think "good thing no fags were allowed in tonight?" Of course they don't. It's not even on their radar.
And that is the whole point. Insulate these boys from some the more complicated aspects of our modern world. Keep things simple for as long as we can.
Like it or not, the country has a problem with gay men working in youth-oriented positions. How many openly gay coaches are there? Does that make team sports biggoted? Should kids avoid high-school sports altogether? How about compulsory education? There are very few OPENLY gay teachers in Americas grade schools. There are just some parts of society where sexuality does not belong.
This is such a joke. You are so hellbent on debating how other people raise their children that you pulled this conversation from driving to the morality of the boy scouts. As if they hand out bigotry merit badges. As if any of the reasons you hate the BSA were even part of the kids lives.
Here's a newsflash: There is nothing taught in the BSA that is objectionable or illegal. The kids have no clue what the national organization does.
The kids and just be kids. That's the beauty of it.
Let me guess: You do not have children? You think that parents are so emotional that they become batshit crazy and are unable to see thru their emotions? That's asinine. My youngest sibling is 12 years older then I am. When I was 20 they were 8. I grew up around children and that did very little to prepare me for actual parenthood.
Re-read those things that I wrote. Let me repost a section:
--- what I'm saying is that children challenge a parent in ways that are unforseen and unexplainable. What I'm saying is that the act of being responsible for another persons life and existence from day 1 makes you grow, change, and mature. What I'm saying is that raising a child was a bigger learning experience in my life then 4 years of college and 3 years in the USMC combined. ---
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, BeOS was in my mind as I wrote this. It received huge buzz in the late 90's and I installed it. However, my opinion is that, as a whole, it wasn't any better then Windows 98. It offered some things that were better, and some that were worse. It was a long time ago, but my impression was "I'd like to see their next version." Unfortunately, that never happened.
I love my tivo. But Tivo is not an example of users "smartening up" to use Linux, it's an example of a linux "dumbing down" to the level of the average users. In fact, Tivo is a wonderful illustration of my post.
When I got my Tivo all I had to do was plug it in and it started working. The interface is a well thought out GUI, and I don't have to do anything but use my Tivo. I never give a thought to what's happening under the hood.
Actually, I meant that I wasn't around in the beginning, when slashdot first started to become popular. I realize now that it's ambiguous, but luckily there's people like you to point out such insignificant issues so I can correct them.
Thanks!
I'm sure that Apple and Microsoft would gladly conceed the 500 super computers on that list--that most of the people in the world have never seen, or even heard of--in exchange for the 500 million PCs and Servers. While I wouldn't call the supercomputers "underground" I *would* call them "obscure"
I've been a slashdotter for a long time. Not a beginner, but certainly not a newbie. Check out my number.
When I found this place I didn't even know how to SAY linux. I said it "LINE-ix."
Over the past 6 or 7 years I've heard a ton of predictions about linux breaking into the home market. A million reasons have been given, and later, a million excuses.
I use linux lightly in my (development) job. I'm occassionaly tasked to do website stuff and all of our webservers run LAMP.
I enjoy using it. Partly because I'm an elitist prick who likes things that other people don't know much about. Also because it's sort of straight-forward. Things are a heirarchy, not an unorganized collection of windows, tabs, dialogs, and buttons.
I enjoy windows, as well. I make a living developing windows software. And there is absolutely no question in my mind that for the huge portion of users, Windows is a superior platform to Linux. If for no other reason then it's actually USABLE by mortals.
My point in this is not to make 1000 people hate me. My point is that SOMEONE needs to do to linux what NeXT/Apple has done to BSD.
Yes, I know that Linux has shells, but these are after-thoughts. They don't come close to the experience of OSX or even Windows XP.
If all the OSS guys HATE microsoft so much, and they think Microsoft sucks so badly, then why the hell can't they build an OS that is actually able to beat windows at its own game?
The strength of Linux is in it's stable and secure kernel and low-level "plumbing." The same as BSD. An OS that includes a "Windows" experience on top of this solid foundation would for teh first time attract real attention and a real user base.
I know this isn't easy, but look at all the time you've had. People slam MSFT for taking 6 years to put out a consumer OS. How is it better to take six years to NOT put out a consumer OS?
Right now Linux is like a Hamm Radio. Adored by hobbyists but foreign to the public. Everyone has a radio, but it's closed-source. They can't tinker with it. They can't do much at all, except press its buttons and turn its dials. The Hamm operators know that their setup is superior, but that's a fact that's lost on the population as a whole.
I would LOVE to have a real alternative to Windows. But I don't. Maybe I never will, at least not in the form of linux. But the way people grasp linux with religious fervor makes me wonder why they don't do what it takes to actually build it into a windows-killer.
Maybe linux-devs and linux-fans really don't want to supplant Windows. As crazy as that sounds, I think it has some merit. What I'm suggesting is that you work to "dumb down" linux a bit. Build a linux that appeals to the novice. But I think the linux camp is waiting for the novices to "smarten up" and adopt linux. I just don't think that's ever going to happen.
Before you slam me, understand that I'm advocating linux. Yes, I'm criticizing the Linux community, but I'm doing it because I (somewhat) agree with the goals of that community.
I would love to see a world where Windows has a 75% market share.
FWIW, there's a registry setting for high-color/true-color in 2000 Server Terminal services. I'm not sure, but i think it's under HKLM > Sys > CurrCtrlSet > Term Server > WinStations. Something like that.
Of course the average user only uses 10% of {Excel|Word|VisualStudio|Etc}'s features. The problem, as developers should very well know, is that everyone uses a different 10%.
Sorry you're so upset about my good karma. Maybe next time you'll contribute to a discussion instead of dissecting a post for the sole purpose of criticizing the moderators. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you meant when you said "in what sense is this post informative?"
t hrax|AIDS|TheGays(TM)|TheUN|DirtyBombs|Iran|AxisOf Evil|KimJongIl|and, oh yea, FearItself"
I'll tell you how it's informative. It informs people like yourself, who have never walked a foot on Chinese soil, that China is not nearly as repressive as most Americans--yourself included--believe. The fact that you've bought in so completely to the myth of a "china syndrome" of oppression and persecution is evidence that you should try to do a little more free-thinking.
The vast majority of Chinese citizens never encounter their government's law enforcement officers. The vast majority of Chinese citizens practicing religion do so peacefully; not in underground churches but right out in the open, under the nose of the Communist party. And they do so without incident.
The only time a parishioner is arrested or "persecuted" is when they blur the lines of religion and politics; when they claim that their allegiance to their chosen beliefs is greater then their allegiance to the party and the state. These are the people who are attempting to use religion to advance their political agenda, which is usually an attempt to "westernize" China. These people would be arrested for their activism even if they were atheists.
The U.S. government is very good at manipulating people. The shortest distance between civil liberty and oppression is fear. They make you so afraid of [place_holder] that you're willing to do what they say, to sacrifice what they ask, give what they demand, and do so quietly. From the day that we became a "super power" our government has been telling us to be afraid of someone. It was never like this before. Just 10 short years earlier the idiom was "Nothing to fear but fear itself." History says we won that war but soon after our culture began to change. It soon became "Nothing to fear but... the soviets" and eventually a more general "Nothing to fear but the communists" and now "Nothing to fear but China|Osama|SARS|Democrats|Hezbollah|ShoeBombs|An
And you sir have bought part and parcel into this. "Peaches and Cream" and "Scorched Earth" are metaphors. Trying to look intellectually-superior by literally interpreting a metaphor wasn't very well thought out. It made you look like you missed your sixth grade class on simile and other figures of speech. I suggest next time you don't try so hard to look smart. It just draws attention to the fact that you're not.
Then why has it went up 5 out of the 6 years of the GWB presidency? The congress is the control group in this case.
Besides, the President has just as much authority over the budget as the Congress. The budget starts at the Presidents desk and it ends up at the presidents desk. And if he doesn't like what the congress did with it during the interim, he doesn't have to sign it into law. I'm sure you remember the government shutdowns caused by Clintons refusal to accept the GOP budget drafts. The budget doesn't become the budget without both branches' approval.
Exactly. This guy has no clue. He's seen some western news coverage of religious persecution in China and has assumed that it's something that happens every day. Pure FUD. He's been raised in a "Stop those commie bastards" environment and he's bought in with every last cent.
The Chineese gov't is not peaches and creme. But it's not the scorched earth hell that so many Americans believe.
No, I'm just willing to accept the fact that nobody reports on the peaceful religious services in China that happen every single day. Yes, there is religious persecution in china. I didn't say there wasn't.
However, you said that there isn't any religion in china. And you are wrong. It's as simple as that. And catholocism is one of the SMALLER religions in the country.
You're buying in to the "China is te devil" FUD and you're not willing to look at both sides of the coin.
<<<
WTF is up with all the trolling on "religeous fundamentalism" lately? I mean, space travel is about as far away as you can get from a hot-button issue for the religious conservatives! If anything, perhaps you should be congratulating our "fundie supporting president" for raising NASA's budget [whitehouse.gov] rather than reducing it like our previous bleeding heart liberal president [newsmax.com] did.
As far as I can figure it, the new troll is:
1. Claim that the "religious fundies" are responsible for all the world's woes.
2. Get modded up because the liberal Slashdotters immediately agree with the words "religeous fundamentalist", no matter how stupid.
3. ???
4. Profit!
>>>
I agree!
Why would it be any easier to relearn the menus then it would be to learn the ribbon? In both cases we're talking a simple hierarchy. The argument is that power users know where to look.
A menu reorganization would be just as disruptive to power uses as the ribbon.
There are five approved religions in China. In fact, there are more catholics in China then in Ireland.
Like it or not, he's right about this one.
For your enjoyment:
NASA budgets since fiscal year 1992:
# 1993 $14.309 billion, existing NASA budget when Clinton took office;
# 1994 $14.568 billion, $259 million increase, first Clinton budget;
# 1995 $13.853 billion, $715 million decrease;
# 1996 $13.885 billion, $32 million increase;
# 1997 $13.709 billion, $176 million decrease;
# 1998 $13.648 billion, $61 million decrease;
# 1999 $13.654 billion, $6 million increase;
# 2000 $13.601 billion, $53 million decrease;
# 2001 $14.253 billion, $652 million increase;
# 2002 $14.892 billion, $639 million increase, first Bush budget;
# 2003 $15.000 billion, $108 million increase (estimated);
# 2004 $15.469 billion, $469 million increase (proposed);
Has anyone seen this? Some excellent writing....
WTF is up with all the trolling on "religeous fundamentalism" lately? I mean, space travel is about as far away as you can get from a hot-button issue for the religious conservatives! If anything, perhaps you should be congratulating our "fundie supporting president" for raising NASA's budget [whitehouse.gov] rather than reducing it like our previous bleeding heart liberal president [newsmax.com] did.
As far as I can figure it, the new troll is:
1. Claim that the "religious fundies" are responsible for all the world's woes.
2. Get modded up because the liberal Slashdotters immediately agree with the words "religeous fundamentalist", no matter how stupid.
3. ???
4. Profit!
Because the bus doesn't give change, so a lot of people just drop $2 in the slot. My guess is that half of all riders do this. That adds up very quick.
First, you claim "study after study" but you posted ONE STUDY.
Second, you posted the same link that someone else did. After reading the study, I replied to him with this post, cut and pasted here for your enjoyment:
Did you actually read your study? If you did, I think you should sharpen those reading comprihension skills.
Let's take a look, shall we?
1) This study was done on NON-LIMITED ACCESS ROADS. That means it was not done on the interstate highway system. Considering this thread was about the interstates, this isn't an apples to apples comparison. To wit: "The objectives of this research was to determine the effects of raising and lowering posted speed limits on driver behavior and accidents for non-limited access rural and urban highways." and also "the major emphasis of this research is on streets and highways that were posted between 20 and 55 mi/h"
2) This study concludes that lowering the speed limit increases accidents. Consider that for a moment. Law abiding citizens adjusted their speed to the new, lower speed limit. However the majority of (law breaking) citizens did not decrease their speed, causing a larged disparity between the fastest and slowest drivers on a given road. Once again, you're blaming the citizens that follow the speed limit for this when you should be blaming the citizens that were breaking the law.
3) No allowance given to habit. If I lived near a testing site and I always drove 65 down the 55mph road I'm not likely to change my speed when the study starts. First, I might not be aware of the speed change for some time after the beginning of the study. Second, it's my observation that most of us drive by "feel." That is, I'm not likely to monitor my speedometer while driving unless prompted by a slow or fast moving vehicle or law enforcement. This prevents the study from illustrating what would happen over a long period of time, say 20 years, during which the people driving on the road daily "cycles" due to death, relocation, reaching legal driving age, etc.
4) Upper Bounds of Speed Increases. As stated, the emphasis of this study is on roads with limits between 20 and 55mph. The maximum increases tested by the study are were +15mph. I couldn't find any specific information on site increases, but it's my guess that they didn't turn many non-divided country roads into 70MpH raceways. It seems to me most likely that the 15mph increases were reserved for the routes with slower speeds at the beginning of the study. Even if I am incorrect, this study is not applicable to the interstate system, the majority of which already operates at 65Mph or higher. There is a difference between a max posted speed of 65 (55Mph originally plus 10MpH adjustment) and a max speed of 80 (65mph plus a 15mph adjustment)
Incidentally, there are a number of factual and typographical errors in the report that piqued my interest. An example:
"Vehicles with a length less than 20 ft (5.1 m) were classified as short vehicles. Vehicles greater than 20 ft (6.1 m) in length were classified as short vehicles. "
There are a number of problems with this statement. First, the number of meters in 20 feet change from one sentence to the next. Second, both groups are classified as "short" despite what I deduce as the intention of the sentence.
In conclusion, this study is not very applicable to our discussion. You should probably read these things for their CONTENT and not just for the parts that back up whatever point you're trying to make.
So, there's my proof. Would you like to eat your crow now or should I put it in a doggy-bag?
Did you actually read your study? If you did, I think you should sharpen those reading comprihension skills.
Let's take a look, shall we?
1) This study was done on NON-LIMITED ACCESS ROADS. That means it was not done on the interstate highway system. Considering this thread was about the interstates, this isn't an apples to apples comparison. To wit: "The objectives of this research was to determine the effects of raising and lowering posted speed limits on driver behavior and accidents for non-limited access rural and urban highways." and also "the major emphasis of this research is on streets and highways that were posted between 20 and 55 mi/h"
2) This study concludes that lowering the speed limit increases accidents. Consider that for a moment. Law abiding citizens adjusted their speed to the new, lower speed limit. However the majority of (law breaking) citizens did not decrease their speed, causing a larged disparity between the fastest and slowest drivers on a given road. Once again, you're blaming the citizens that follow the speed limit for this when you should be blaming the citizens that were breaking the law.
3) No allowance given to habit. If I lived near a testing site and I always drove 65 down the 55mph road I'm not likely to change my speed when the study starts. First, I might not be aware of the speed change for some time after the beginning of the study. Second, it's my observation that most of us drive by "feel." That is, I'm not likely to monitor my speedometer while driving unless prompted by a slow or fast moving vehicle or law enforcement. This prevents the study from illustrating what would happen over a long period of time, say 20 years, during which the people driving on the road daily "cycles" due to death, relocation, reaching legal driving age, etc.
4) Upper Bounds of Speed Increases. As stated, the emphasis of this study is on roads with limits between 20 and 55mph. The maximum increases tested by the study are were +15mph. I couldn't find any specific information on site increases, but it's my guess that they didn't turn many non-divided country roads into 70MpH raceways. It seems to me most likely that the 15mph increases were reserved for the routes with slower speeds at the beginning of the study. Even if I am incorrect, this study is not applicable to the interstate system, the majority of which already operates at 65Mph or higher. There is a difference between a max posted speed of 65 (55Mph originally plus 10MpH adjustment) and a max speed of 80 (65mph plus a 15mph adjustment)
Incidentally, there are a number of factual and typographical errors in the report that piqued my interest. An example:
"Vehicles with a length less than 20 ft (5.1 m) were classified as short vehicles. Vehicles greater than 20 ft (6.1 m) in length were classified as short vehicles. "
There are a number of problems with this statement. First, the number of meters in 20 feet change from one sentence to the next. Second, both groups are classified as "short" despite what I deduce as the intention of the sentence.
In conclusion, this study is not very applicable to our discussion. You should probably read these things for their CONTENT and not just for the parts that back up whatever point you're trying to make.
So, there's my proof. Would you like to eat your crow now or should I put it in a doggy-bag?
By the way, I'm not being "haughty" about parenting. In fact, I'm not even sure that "Haughty" makes any sense when used in this way. Haughty means "proud" and it wasn't really abourt pride. It was about the fact that over the next 20 years of your life, you're likely to grow and change in ways you don't yet realize.
C'mon, man, let's for a single moment accept your argument as true. That means that over the next 20 years of your life, as you experience life and maybe even raise children, that you won't learn anything, that you won't gain any new perspective, that your opinions won't grow in any way.
I'm sorry that you feel the injustice of a world that doesn't take the word of a 22 year old as gospel. You're basically still a child. I know it must frusterate you to no end to hear that, but it does happen to be true. Five years ago you were still your parents responsibility. You have been in control of your own destiny for such a pittifully small amount of time that you don't even know what you don't know.
In twenty years you WILL grow. You WILL mature. You WILL look back at your 22 year-old self as what you actually are. A child. With childish behavior.
You can accept today that people 20 years older then you have 20 years of more experience, or you can just wait 20 years and see for yourself. But nevermind, I'm sure you'll be fine. After all, you're an Uncle. You have coworkers with children. You're basically a Senior Citizen! Let me call my alma matter and insist you be made an honorary PhD!
You're opinions are about as enlightened as your average high school student. Step down from your horse and look around. You'd be surprised how much you can learn that way.
I suppose I'm preaching to the choir though (man, using that term is ironic) after all, you already know everything.
If you didn't fit so nicely into the "know it all brat" category this wouldn't be so easy for me, but really, you are their poster boy after this thread.
"the word "god" in both cases is known to be an implicit reference to the christian god"
/.'er and I promise you, there's nothing I will do to stop you.
This is what your agument amounts to. Unfortunately, the law doesn't work that way. Nothing is implied.
The government has made no law concerning the establishment or promotion of religion. Religion can be seperated from God (see: scientology) and God can be seperated from Religion (See: In God We Trust).
When you convince me that religion is the same as God, and that "God" promotes a RELIGION, then I will believe you. But you've got a lot of convincing to do.
By the way, I love the sig. You should go look up "arrogance." It actually has nothing to do with the meaning you give it. But you're not too concerened with the way things ACTUALLY are. Not that I mind. Yuo can proclaim your ignorance to every
If you've been debating this for 8 years then you MUST have at least a somewhat convincing argument.
No, "under god" et al are only unconstitutional according to YOUR INTERPRETATION of the lemon decision. If the court had ruled on these things, there would be no further debate. The only debate would be whether or not to change the constitution.
The Establishment clause was designed to prevent a state-sanctioned church. Using the word "God" does *NOT* promote one religion over another. If it said "In catholicism we trust" it would be different.
I was alive during Kurtzman. I remember the case well. It, along with Tinker and Hazelwood were a very big deal. When the court rules that "Under God" is unconstitutional, then it will be removed. Until then, deal with it.
You consider this a violation of your rights? Hearing the word "God" is a violation of your rights? Why don't you talk to some people who have REALLY had their rights violated and see what they think about your "under god" problem. ESPECIALLY considering that most people--our Congress and Court included--don't consider this to be 'supporting religion'
"do you think atheists objection to "under god" in the pledge is nonsense?"
I missed this one. Yes, this is nonsense. You live in a country that was founded by people looking for religious freedom. Sorry about your luck. Many countries have a state-sanctioned church. In America all you have to deal with is "Under God" and "In God We Trust." Learn to deal with it.
If I'm a bigot because I don't care that the pledge contains a reference to God, then I guess I'm just a bigot in your eyes. You're mister "accept everyone for who they are" why can't you accept that some people see this subject different then you. You're allowed to label people but nobody else is? Puh-leese.
You mean the Boy Scouts of America isn't a utopia of acceptance, love, peace, joy, and salvation? Why didn't someone tell me sooner!
Do you have any idea of the values that BSA teaches it's scouts? All you seem to know is the news accounts you read. Some gay scout master somewhere prohibited to participate. Do you think that the kids are involved with that? Do you think the kids leave their meetings and think "good thing no fags were allowed in tonight?" Of course they don't. It's not even on their radar.
And that is the whole point. Insulate these boys from some the more complicated aspects of our modern world. Keep things simple for as long as we can.
Like it or not, the country has a problem with gay men working in youth-oriented positions. How many openly gay coaches are there? Does that make team sports biggoted? Should kids avoid high-school sports altogether? How about compulsory education? There are very few OPENLY gay teachers in Americas grade schools. There are just some parts of society where sexuality does not belong.
This is such a joke. You are so hellbent on debating how other people raise their children that you pulled this conversation from driving to the morality of the boy scouts. As if they hand out bigotry merit badges. As if any of the reasons you hate the BSA were even part of the kids lives.
Here's a newsflash: There is nothing taught in the BSA that is objectionable or illegal. The kids have no clue what the national organization does.
The kids and just be kids. That's the beauty of it.
Let me guess: You do not have children? You think that parents are so emotional that they become batshit crazy and are unable to see thru their emotions? That's asinine. My youngest sibling is 12 years older then I am. When I was 20 they were 8. I grew up around children and that did very little to prepare me for actual parenthood.
Re-read those things that I wrote. Let me repost a section:
---
what I'm saying is that children challenge a parent in ways that are unforseen and unexplainable. What I'm saying is that the act of being responsible for another persons life and existence from day 1 makes you grow, change, and mature. What I'm saying is that raising a child was a bigger learning experience in my life then 4 years of college and 3 years in the USMC combined.
---
You think you can glean that from OBSERVATION?
I'm sorry, that's just not possible.