For apple users with a single computer and the latest OS, it isn't a problem. With multiple computers and multiple OS versions, it's still no fun, even for mac users.
Try to add an older powerbook to his network with OS 8.5 or 8.6 . Try to do it using hardware that isn't Apple branded.
Ok. You have it all set up. Take it down the street to the neighbor's house. He has wifi. You know the one. He's the "average user". You are above average. Your mom is probably below average. He is average.
He has too much money tho, so he has 4 computers. Each runs a different OS or OS version. He read on CNN that he needed WEP, so he turned it on. And after a while he got all of his computers working. And he heard from you that he should have a password on his access point, so he set one. A good one. And he read someplace that he shouldn't write passwords down (in case someone finds the post-it under the keyboard.) so he doesn't know his encryption key or passphrase or WAP password.
One omore thing. His encryption keys are "*********"'d out on his screen to protect them (some NIC utilities do this).
Go ahead and setup your powerbook in less than an hour without breaking his network. Or setup his new computer.
Wouldn't it just be easier if he hadn't messed with that WEP stuff in the first place?
I do a fair bit of house-call work in my area. (Pays the bills...) I've set up a fair number of WiFi networks at homes and offices over the past few years. Most of the home networks do not have WEP enabled.
Contrary to popular belief, WEP is quite useful. Unless you have a script, you probably won't break the key. Getting and using the script is a malicious act... And there are so many other EASIER targets.
For businesses, I enable WEP by default. (Actually, I recommend that they stick to wired networks when possible... but these days, they don't listen. When they ask "but can you do this?" I say yes.) WEP is a pain to setup for the business owner... so I get repeat business when they add another station. I've tried writing instructions, but I usually end up visiting anyway. WEP is a bitch for endusers.
For home users, I give them a choice. I say, "do you want me to setup this feature?" and they say "How much?" (I bill hourly for this). I bet you all can figure how it ends.
WEP is simple to setup for a single NIC to a single WAP. In fact, MAC whitelisting also works well here. But for networks with 3 or more stations, or with NICs of different makes, or with more than one installed OS type, setup, configuration and testing of WEP (or similar encryption) is time consuming. Time is money. Consumers make a consumer decision... probably a GOOD consumer decision. Ask an economist.
I suppose I could work for free. Or I could estimate more time (and money) to begin with and lose out on the business. But I'd rather work than whine about not having enough work.
TANSTAAFL
So, it looks like your 1% is VERY low. Sample size is everything, and your sample of you (ONE), isn't big enough to make any conclusions from.
So you think that most IT workers know fewer than 20 others in their field? Admittedly, some slashdotters still hide out in mom's basement and play UT when not programming... but what about the people they play UT with?
Over the past 2 years, well over 90% of the IT people I know have been laid off
Guess that makes you a bubble boy?
And just think, I probably know one of them too. The amazing statistic to be derived from this is not that one 5 know someone who has been compelled to train a foreign replacement, but rather that 80% DO NOT KNOW ANY IT WORKERS THAT HAVE BEEN LAID OFF BUT FORCED TO TRAIN A FOREIGN REPLACEMENT. Think about that.
We see a lot of exposure for this err... fringe issue... that 80% of us (per the article) have never encountered at either first or second hand.
'Almost one in five information technology workers has lost a job or knows someone who lost a job after training a foreign worker,
One in 5 knows someone who has lost a job and trained a foreigner. I know more than 20 IT workers. I bet most/.ers do too. So we're talking less than 1% here.
Not that losing ANY jobs is ever good... but a 1% swing in ANYTHING is hardly a trend. And this is far less than 1%.
fortunatly, i think this will change when people realize there is an ample supply of knowledgeable folks out there who can do this stuff. it's easier to find a geek now than it was even 5 years ago!
"Ample supply" is a bit of an overstatement. Sure there are people who know. There "always" have been. But these people are all busy compling their own stuff. And even if their own activities leave time to support this sort of thing, I'm quite sure that they get tired of answering that same question again and again. And even if they are willing, they'll want to get paid...
My $.02---> If you are upgrading/supporting a system that MIGHT ever be supported by anyone else EVER, use packages. The next support geek may not be as much a geek as you are.
It would be interesting to see the New York Times, or any other online media company for that matter, try to use this ruling to force China etc. to allow uncensored access to their content (else face trade barriers).
The US is notorious for ignoring rulings of this type, but it would be fun to use unbalanced rulings like this to turn the tables a bit...
Spraking of China... Do China and other WTO members also have to allow online gambling?
What needs to be done is establish and enforce international free-competition standards via the WTO. Then, if a US company is found to be breaking these, the problem can be addressed to the right place, namely the US government.
Err... the WTO? I doubt the WTO would want to do anything with this. Even if it did, I don't see that it could do anything useful. Order punitive tariffs on all US exports? Just on US software exports? Is that a solution?
Or perhaps you think that the WTO will fine the US government (and taxpayers) directly? Do you think the US government would pay? Are you prepared to enforce that judgment? The traditional remedy amongst nations when one maliciously fails to meet its obligations is to make war. Europeans don't have much stomach for fighting even "just" wars. Neville Chamberlain was a man ahead of his time; he'd do great in Europe today. But if by some mischance the EU does decide to undertake such an action, could you PLEASE send the French over first?
I'm no fan of M$ or US policy in dealing with anti-competitive abuse, but I'm not sure that war is the answer.
The EU could achieve much more in the arena of competition by correcting the injustices of the patent system
Well, the EU could do this, but I'm not sure why they would... anymore than the US would. Governments like these little injustices when they gain by them, and oppose them when they are on the short end. Go figure.
That said, the EU is the LAST body I would want rewriting patent laws. The European model of copyright is causing all kinds of problems in the US. I'm afraid of what an European patent model would be.
Weak Atheist:or alleged atheist non-affirming; lacks the belief or specific non-belief in a god (e.g. maybe the brain dead, infant children)
Strong Atheist: or true atheist affirming; believes that God(s) doesn't exist; has some reasons for this belief (faith, logical argument, or something else) (strong) Theist:
affirming; believes that some god (or gods, or God) exists; also has reasons for this belief including logic or faith. Weak Theist: or pop-culture agnostic is unsure about the existence or nature of God, and specifically, accepts/agrees with no Theology. This position is affirming, the weak theist affirms their current uncertainty/confusion. Agnostic: or true agnostic believes that man can never know if God (or gods) exist. The agnostic makes a broad assertion about the nature of god(s), and as such agnosticism is compatible only with affirming positions.
What he does on the job is not done by John Ashcroft the private individual, but is done in the name of the government and broader, in the name of the state. When he prays in his office, he's praying in the name of the state, as it were. And that he has no right to do.
When he fails to pray in his office, isn't his non-prayer also in the name of the state? If his non-prayer is statutory, isn't the law then speaking to and regulating religious practice? Isn't that unconstitutional?
In my view a praying person is wasting time that could be spent doing something constructive. He could be wasting time asking his Magic Eight Ball(tm) legal questions... instead he is talking to a supernatural "power" that I know doesn't exist. But I defend his right to do just that!
I defend it because defending his right to pray, whenever he wants to, even if TV cameras are watching, even if some people aren't comfortable or happy about it, also acts to defend my right to NOT pray, even when others think I should, even when there are TV cameras around, even when my NONPRAYER makes others uncomfortable.
Mr. Ashcroft is not perfect. He is not the brightest star in the Bush Administration. He is not without faults; he has tons of them. He supports policies which reasonable Americans should question at best and reject at worse.
But his prayer, no matter how obnoxious you or I find it, is not a subject of reasonable criticism.
you're a fucking retard. atheism is not a religeon in any real sense of the word.
Perhaps I am a retard, you insensitive clod! But at least I try to use proper capitalization and spelling so I don't appear to be retarded to the casual reader.
me saying "you can't have prayer time in school" is like me saying "you can't masturbate in school"
...except that there is no clause of the US Constitution that says "Congress shall make no law respecting sexual activity, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
So except that they are totally different in legal terms, you're right.
It is true that there are many athiests who say that they believe that God does not exist. But this nonbelief in God is not necessary for atheism. There are many atheists who lack the positive belief "There are no Gods."
Um... those who lack such a positive belief can't know that they are Atheists then. It is part of how the human mind works... To have no belief about something means to have no knowlege of something. Once you have knowledge of something, you will believe things about it. In order to interrogate a suspected non-affirming atheist so as to ascertain their status in this discussion, you would necessarily change them to affirming Atheists, else you would discover that they were in fact theists. One cannot spend time thinking on the subject of divinity without having thoughts on the matter. Those thoughts don't go away.
Let me be clear in this matter. I accept your explanation of Atheism. It is correct in the philosophical sense. But the Atheist, as a practical matter, only exists in the affirming variety. (Actually, I suppose that some young, pre-self-aware children, and some people who are in a permanent vegetative state may qualify as non-affirming atheists, but we'll never know...)
You seem to be trying to group specific anti-theists [those who disagree with one or all particular theism(s)] into your atheist group, and to produce as a result a large group of atheists who may still have latent beliefs about divinity. To be clear here, people who believe in god(s) specifically (Praise Allah!), and even those who are unsure but have not ruled out the existence of god(s), must all be considered theists. (At least, that is what I consider them. Perhaps we need a word to describe them?)This last group is often considered to be "Agnostic" by the society at large. This link may prove helpful in understanding this.
Atheists DO have an affirmative belief then. They (we) believe that there IS [no god(s)]. But we can't prove this to everyone's satisfaction, or even to our own (since it is very difficult to prove a negative). Lacking proof, we nonetheless believe this. Why else claim to be atheist? See this.
A fanatic theist may cry "death to the infidels!" or "Praise Jesus!". He may wish to require compliance with his particular theism and dogma. He may burn or vandalize a restaurant that serves a forbidden food or which does business at an "unholy?" time. A fanatic atheist sees these beliefs and their resulting actions as wasteful since the basis of the theism is false, or even as harmful since it serves to affirm a false belief, but his views are no more "logical" than the views of the fanatic theist.
Atheism [to the atheist and to any observer] is a religion(check the #4 definition), or at least is [in]distinguishable from religion.
Speaking as a thoughtful Atheist, I thought I'd point out that Atheism is itself a religion, or at the very least it is distinguishable from religion. Like most religion, Atheism centers on the faith of the Atheist that there are no God(s). Certainly this has not been proven, at least not in the scientific sense.
Do not confuse Atheists with Agnostics.
"So he should be forbidden from praying?"
On the job? Absolutely, unless he's doing it during his lunch break and in private.
Seems to me that you want a religion established here. I shouldn't object, since it is my religion, but I do because I am philosophically consistent (IE not a hypocrite like so many others). If it is right to ban public prayer, then it is equally right to require public prayer. But both are wrong under the US constitution. Under this constitution, government must do neither. The law, and congress are supposed to be silent about this...
If Ashcroft wants to pray before meetings and shout "Praise Jesus" every time a 13yr old is forced to settle with the RIAA, we should be respectful of his right to do so. If he chooses not to do these things we should tolerate this as well. But if he tells us we must do, or must not do, these things, then he is treading on our liberty. Only then.
If it is important to you that officials not pray, then vote for officials that do not. If you don't want appointed officials who pray, vote for Presidents (and whatnot) that share your hatred for praying fools. If enough agree with you, then surely you will win.
But fair warning... Bush, Kerry, and even Nader all have friends who pray. God help us!
We need more candidates from more politcal parties to be able to run for president. Has there every been a time when there were more then two candidates for president?
Yep. Happened Pre-civil war. The republicans were the 3rd party. Lincoln won. In modern history, Teddy Roosveltran ran 3rd party once. In the Late '40s there were some semi-serious 3rd parties (dixiecrats anyone), and let us NEVER forget Ross Perot in the '90s.
So it has been done.
the only way to fix things is to look into our past and do what our founding fathers did to build a once great nation. That is to revolt. Get our rifles and bring down the current political game. Rebuild on the foundation of the original constitution, and maybe try to make it more "locked tight" as to prevent abuse in the future. I would also create a REAL democracy and not a "represented" one.
Um... right.
Actually a CON-CON just about now might be a good thing. The fact that our constitution is older doesn't make it better. Armed revolt though? You first.
As for non-represtative democracy... why not just hand everything over to the broadcast media? Keep in mind that they too are a special interest.
You cannot play a fair game in which all of the other players are cheating. Go ahead and try to run for office and be honest, not take bribes/contributions, etc. You will not get very far in the current political game.
Maybe not. But I'll get further than I would plotting armed revolt. Might even live to tell about it.
Anyone but BUSH. Anyone that is, except for KERRY!
In short, give with the workable -
Viable answers, or just admit that we are, in fact, hopelessly fucked...
We are hopelessly fucked. We are Fucked because even if you hear the answer you'll fear it. We are Fucked because, in America, we have only two major political parties, we are Fucked because in choosing betwixt them every couple of years, we can at best choose which group of wealthy special interests we want to allow to fuck us over this time...
Bush and his Republicans favor large corporations that have money and political clout. Kerry and his Democrats favor large trade unions that have money and political clout. The only question is we get to answer is which bunch of criminals we want in office. And we get no good choices.
You want to fix the problem? Don't vote for Bush, or for anyone in his party. Not even for School board. Don't vote for anyone endorsed by the local or national chamber of commerce. Don't vote for Kerry or anyone from his party. Don't vote for anyone endorsed by your union. Don't vote for anyone who is endorsed by ANY union. Even if you like their message or ideology, remember that these people are all in the pocket of a special interest.
The ABA, AMA, NRA, NAB, and even AAA are all special interests. Look to see who they like. Then vote for somebody else.
BUT ALWAYS VOTE!
You want to fix the problem? Really? Run for office yourself. It won't pay very well if you're honest. But if you know what is wrong with the system, you are a hypocrite if you don't try to fix it. Yourself.
There must be nothing interesting to me in the current stories since I am still answering on this thread.
as I meant no such implication. To be 100% clear, the activist site makes
blatant assertions, without backing facts.
(Emphasis mine)
Blatant has at least two meanings that I am aware of. One is judgmental (syn. obnoxious, vociferous, obtrusive), the other is not (syn. conspicuous). Since any published report is conspicuous, or becomes conspicuous as soon as it hits the front page of slashdot, I assume you are using the judgmental meaning. In fact, you probably mean to use neither... but blatant implies judgment.
The "activist" site (activist is also semi-judgmental, but we won't go there) contains facts supporting their assertions, but the facts are in dispute here...
The paper and the site claims an arrest and charge were made, there is no dispute.
The police claim he committed a crime and the rag cites the police etc. extensively. The activist site claims that he did not commit a crime. Both statements are statements of fact. That one might (must) be in error does not change this.
Both sources offer different versions of the events. Those accounts are statements of fact. One or both accounts may be in error.
Neither presenter is likely to lose a lawsuit over this, so Libel is not an issue. Both could be making blatant fabrications. Why would I trust the paper?
Well, since we are in quibble mode... property and sales taxes typically are for indirect or non-specific benefits. My property taxes go to pay for services which I may or may not use. Same can be said for sales and income taxes. These taxes go into a general fund which City, State, and Natonal governments can use as they please even if that use does not directly benefit me.
By contrast, the Medicare payroll "tax" goes, at least in theory, to pay for (at least in part) my post-retirement medical care. The quality of the coverage provided is a matter for political debate, but except for the very wealthy (who would never want to use it) or foreign nationals, this "tax" is simply prepayment for a service to be rendered.
Thanks for the well reasoned defense of the income tax. A lot of people seem to forget that lower income workers pay more on payroll taxes than income taxes.
Just a quibble... But for the most part Payroll "taxes" related to medicare and SSI and the like are more like user-fees than taxes.
Please note I never stated the newspaper is not biased. I did state that the activist site made blatant assertions. Newspapers usually, and generally, report facts, whether that reporting is biased or not, and leaves out some facts or not to swing reader opinion to one side or another.
The newspaper stated that there was attempted extortion (verifiable by Richard being arrested on extortion charges) as an example. If he wasn't arrested for extortion, this would be libel, and the newspaper could actually get in relatively hot water for publishing such drivel. This still doesn't mean the reporting can't be biased.
You imply, both in your original comment and in this followup that the newspaper is trustworthy because it reports facts. Since you do not make the same assertion about the othe site, I must assume that either you think it contains no facts, or more likely, that we should trust the newspaper BECAUSE it is a newspaper, REGARDLESS of its bias. (both may contain FACTS, so why else prefer the rag?)
One more thing... in the US, newspapers are almost NEVER found guilty of Libel. Even if they managed to have NO facts in the story they posted, the paper has almost no chance of losing a Libel case. (Also, the other site is just as culpable for Libel, and just as unlikely to lose. FYI)
In my more idealistic moments, I also would prefer to believe that a Sheriff wouldn't abuse his power. But even when these sureal moods hit me, I don't believe in unbiased, or even a fair, media coverage.
He merely said that the newspaper's more likely to be less biased than a site openly supporting the guy.
In my experience, being less biased is a bit like being less pregnant. You are or you aren't. Newspapers advocate when they choose what to report. They advocate when they choose how to report and which facts to present. The WSJ is biased as is the NYT... and Fox and CNN for that matter. Even if they are centrist (whatever that means to you) they are biased.
At least the outlet supporting the guy is open about its intent.
Slashdot Mirror
For apple users with a single computer and the latest OS, it isn't a problem. With multiple computers and multiple OS versions, it's still no fun, even for mac users.
Try to add an older powerbook to his network with OS 8.5 or 8.6 . Try to do it using hardware that isn't Apple branded.
Ok. You have it all set up. Take it down the street to the neighbor's house. He has wifi. You know the one. He's the "average user". You are above average. Your mom is probably below average. He is average.
He has too much money tho, so he has 4 computers. Each runs a different OS or OS version. He read on CNN that he needed WEP, so he turned it on. And after a while he got all of his computers working. And he heard from you that he should have a password on his access point, so he set one. A good one. And he read someplace that he shouldn't write passwords down (in case someone finds the post-it under the keyboard.) so he doesn't know his encryption key or passphrase or WAP password.
One omore thing. His encryption keys are "*********"'d out on his screen to protect them (some NIC utilities do this).
Go ahead and setup your powerbook in less than an hour without breaking his network. Or setup his new computer.
Wouldn't it just be easier if he hadn't messed with that WEP stuff in the first place?
I do a fair bit of house-call work in my area. (Pays the bills...) I've set up a fair number of WiFi networks at homes and offices over the past few years. Most of the home networks do not have WEP enabled.
Contrary to popular belief, WEP is quite useful. Unless you have a script, you probably won't break the key. Getting and using the script is a malicious act... And there are so many other EASIER targets.
For businesses, I enable WEP by default. (Actually, I recommend that they stick to wired networks when possible... but these days, they don't listen. When they ask "but can you do this?" I say yes.) WEP is a pain to setup for the business owner... so I get repeat business when they add another station. I've tried writing instructions, but I usually end up visiting anyway. WEP is a bitch for endusers.
For home users, I give them a choice. I say, "do you want me to setup this feature?" and they say "How much?" (I bill hourly for this). I bet you all can figure how it ends.
WEP is simple to setup for a single NIC to a single WAP. In fact, MAC whitelisting also works well here. But for networks with 3 or more stations, or with NICs of different makes, or with more than one installed OS type, setup, configuration and testing of WEP (or similar encryption) is time consuming. Time is money. Consumers make a consumer decision... probably a GOOD consumer decision. Ask an economist.
I suppose I could work for free. Or I could estimate more time (and money) to begin with and lose out on the business. But I'd rather work than whine about not having enough work.
TANSTAAFL
Guess that makes you a bubble boy?
And just think, I probably know one of them too. The amazing statistic to be derived from this is not that one 5 know someone who has been compelled to train a foreign replacement, but rather that 80% DO NOT KNOW ANY IT WORKERS THAT HAVE BEEN LAID OFF BUT FORCED TO TRAIN A FOREIGN REPLACEMENT. Think about that.
We see a lot of exposure for this err... fringe issue... that 80% of us (per the article) have never encountered at either first or second hand.
Not that losing ANY jobs is ever good... but a 1% swing in ANYTHING is hardly a trend. And this is far less than 1%.
My $.02---> If you are upgrading/supporting a system that MIGHT ever be supported by anyone else EVER, use packages. The next support geek may not be as much a geek as you are.
It would be interesting to see the New York Times, or any other online media company for that matter, try to use this ruling to force China etc. to allow uncensored access to their content (else face trade barriers).
The US is notorious for ignoring rulings of this type, but it would be fun to use unbalanced rulings like this to turn the tables a bit...
Spraking of China... Do China and other WTO members also have to allow online gambling?
Or perhaps you think that the WTO will fine the US government (and taxpayers) directly? Do you think the US government would pay? Are you prepared to enforce that judgment? The traditional remedy amongst nations when one maliciously fails to meet its obligations is to make war. Europeans don't have much stomach for fighting even "just" wars. Neville Chamberlain was a man ahead of his time; he'd do great in Europe today. But if by some mischance the EU does decide to undertake such an action, could you PLEASE send the French over first?
I'm no fan of M$ or US policy in dealing with anti-competitive abuse, but I'm not sure that war is the answer.
Well, the EU could do this, but I'm not sure why they would... anymore than the US would. Governments like these little injustices when they gain by them, and oppose them when they are on the short end. Go figure.
That said, the EU is the LAST body I would want rewriting patent laws. The European model of copyright is causing all kinds of problems in the US. I'm afraid of what an European patent model would be.
Weak Atheist: or alleged atheist non-affirming; lacks the belief or specific non-belief in a god (e.g. maybe the brain dead, infant children)
Strong Atheist: or true atheist affirming; believes that God(s) doesn't exist; has some reasons for this belief (faith, logical argument, or something else)
(strong) Theist: affirming; believes that some god (or gods, or God) exists; also has reasons for this belief including logic or faith.
Weak Theist: or pop-culture agnostic is unsure about the existence or nature of God, and specifically, accepts/agrees with no Theology. This position is affirming, the weak theist affirms their current uncertainty/confusion.
Agnostic: or true agnostic believes that man can never know if God (or gods) exist. The agnostic makes a broad assertion about the nature of god(s), and as such agnosticism is compatible only with affirming positions.
In my view a praying person is wasting time that could be spent doing something constructive. He could be wasting time asking his Magic Eight Ball(tm) legal questions... instead he is talking to a supernatural "power" that I know doesn't exist. But I defend his right to do just that!
I defend it because defending his right to pray, whenever he wants to, even if TV cameras are watching, even if some people aren't comfortable or happy about it, also acts to defend my right to NOT pray, even when others think I should, even when there are TV cameras around, even when my NONPRAYER makes others uncomfortable.
Mr. Ashcroft is not perfect. He is not the brightest star in the Bush Administration. He is not without faults; he has tons of them. He supports policies which reasonable Americans should question at best and reject at worse.
But his prayer, no matter how obnoxious you or I find it, is not a subject of reasonable criticism.
So except that they are totally different in legal terms, you're right.
I think I fed a troll.
Let me be clear in this matter. I accept your explanation of Atheism. It is correct in the philosophical sense. But the Atheist, as a practical matter, only exists in the affirming variety. (Actually, I suppose that some young, pre-self-aware children, and some people who are in a permanent vegetative state may qualify as non-affirming atheists, but we'll never know...)
You seem to be trying to group specific anti-theists [those who disagree with one or all particular theism(s)] into your atheist group, and to produce as a result a large group of atheists who may still have latent beliefs about divinity. To be clear here, people who believe in god(s) specifically (Praise Allah!), and even those who are unsure but have not ruled out the existence of god(s), must all be considered theists. (At least, that is what I consider them. Perhaps we need a word to describe them?)This last group is often considered to be "Agnostic" by the society at large. This link may prove helpful in understanding this.
Atheists DO have an affirmative belief then. They (we) believe that there IS [no god(s)]. But we can't prove this to everyone's satisfaction, or even to our own (since it is very difficult to prove a negative). Lacking proof, we nonetheless believe this. Why else claim to be atheist? See this.
A fanatic theist may cry "death to the infidels!" or "Praise Jesus!". He may wish to require compliance with his particular theism and dogma. He may burn or vandalize a restaurant that serves a forbidden food or which does business at an "unholy?" time. A fanatic atheist sees these beliefs and their resulting actions as wasteful since the basis of the theism is false, or even as harmful since it serves to affirm a false belief, but his views are no more "logical" than the views of the fanatic theist.
Atheism [to the atheist and to any observer] is a religion(check the #4 definition), or at least is [in]distinguishable from religion.
Do not confuse Atheists with Agnostics.
Seems to me that you want a religion established here. I shouldn't object, since it is my religion, but I do because I am philosophically consistent (IE not a hypocrite like so many others). If it is right to ban public prayer, then it is equally right to require public prayer. But both are wrong under the US constitution. Under this constitution, government must do neither. The law, and congress are supposed to be silent about this...
If Ashcroft wants to pray before meetings and shout "Praise Jesus" every time a 13yr old is forced to settle with the RIAA, we should be respectful of his right to do so. If he chooses not to do these things we should tolerate this as well. But if he tells us we must do, or must not do, these things, then he is treading on our liberty. Only then.
If it is important to you that officials not pray, then vote for officials that do not. If you don't want appointed officials who pray, vote for Presidents (and whatnot) that share your hatred for praying fools. If enough agree with you, then surely you will win.
But fair warning... Bush, Kerry, and even Nader all have friends who pray. God help us!
How about "Featured on Slashdot"
So it has been done.
Um... right.
Actually a CON-CON just about now might be a good thing. The fact that our constitution is older doesn't make it better. Armed revolt though? You first.
As for non-represtative democracy... why not just hand everything over to the broadcast media? Keep in mind that they too are a special interest. Maybe not. But I'll get further than I would plotting armed revolt. Might even live to tell about it.
Anyone but BUSH. Anyone that is, except for KERRY!
Bush and his Republicans favor large corporations that have money and political clout. Kerry and his Democrats favor large trade unions that have money and political clout. The only question is we get to answer is which bunch of criminals we want in office. And we get no good choices.
You want to fix the problem? Don't vote for Bush, or for anyone in his party. Not even for School board. Don't vote for anyone endorsed by the local or national chamber of commerce. Don't vote for Kerry or anyone from his party. Don't vote for anyone endorsed by your union. Don't vote for anyone who is endorsed by ANY union. Even if you like their message or ideology, remember that these people are all in the pocket of a special interest.
The ABA, AMA, NRA, NAB, and even AAA are all special interests. Look to see who they like. Then vote for somebody else.
BUT ALWAYS VOTE!
You want to fix the problem? Really? Run for office yourself. It won't pay very well if you're honest. But if you know what is wrong with the system, you are a hypocrite if you don't try to fix it. Yourself.
Blatant has at least two meanings that I am aware of. One is judgmental (syn. obnoxious, vociferous, obtrusive), the other is not (syn. conspicuous). Since any published report is conspicuous, or becomes conspicuous as soon as it hits the front page of slashdot, I assume you are using the judgmental meaning. In fact, you probably mean to use neither... but blatant implies judgment.
The "activist" site (activist is also semi-judgmental, but we won't go there) contains facts supporting their assertions, but the facts are in dispute here...
The paper and the site claims an arrest and charge were made, there is no dispute.
The police claim he committed a crime and the rag cites the police etc. extensively. The activist site claims that he did not commit a crime. Both statements are statements of fact. That one might (must) be in error does not change this.
Both sources offer different versions of the events. Those accounts are statements of fact. One or both accounts may be in error.
Neither presenter is likely to lose a lawsuit over this, so Libel is not an issue. Both could be making blatant fabrications. Why would I trust the paper?
What about postal?
Well, since we are in quibble mode... property and sales taxes typically are for indirect or non-specific benefits. My property taxes go to pay for services which I may or may not use. Same can be said for sales and income taxes. These taxes go into a general fund which City, State, and Natonal governments can use as they please even if that use does not directly benefit me.
By contrast, the Medicare payroll "tax" goes, at least in theory, to pay for (at least in part) my post-retirement medical care. The quality of the coverage provided is a matter for political debate, but except for the very wealthy (who would never want to use it) or foreign nationals, this "tax" is simply prepayment for a service to be rendered.
Well, obviously you arent a lawyer. Every lawyer will tell you to sue EVERYONE and wait for the settlement offers. Of course the lawyer gets 1/3....
One more thing... in the US, newspapers are almost NEVER found guilty of Libel. Even if they managed to have NO facts in the story they posted, the paper has almost no chance of losing a Libel case. (Also, the other site is just as culpable for Libel, and just as unlikely to lose. FYI)
In my more idealistic moments, I also would prefer to believe that a Sheriff wouldn't abuse his power. But even when these sureal moods hit me, I don't believe in unbiased, or even a fair, media coverage.
At least the outlet supporting the guy is open about its intent.