legal costs for 30 minutes--that's a lot more than $20. In certain parts of the US there are lawyers that charge $500/hr. Probably not for that kind of work, but you get the point.
Besides, this would take a lawyer closer to 3 hours. I know how hourly billing tends to worK!
As a psychologist (in training, mind you) I find this laughable. "Reverse Psychology" is extremely risky--you have to take the chance that no one will discover what you are trying to do. If they do, the game is up.
Now, Bush may or may not be terribly bright, but I doubt that his staff would stupid enough to pull a stunt like that. Remember, such a stunt requires ignorance. If even ONE reporter had an inkling that such was the case, the news pundits would have a field day with the remains of Bush's staff. Granted, you have a point, but it requires that no one find out what you are trying to pull.
Even more, Bush knows that there are a lot of people who don't want him back--lying becomes extremely risky under those circumstances.
Which is one of the biggest arguments that he is sincere--he does things that any politician (or their staff) should know would hurt his chances at election. Thus there are only a few alternatives: 1. He is lunatic (which I am not discounting, since he is a politician)
2. He has done all of this as part of a bigger plot to make untold amounts of money and power
3. He really believes that what he is doing is the right thing, in that it is what is best for America (like he says).
#2 would require that he be really smart--something that most Americans would not readily believe, even though he did go to Yale, an institution that would be pretty upset about charges of giving grades that were completely undeserved.
#1 is mostly a "yes its a possibility" plea
#3 is the one I choose to believe, given that I don't think he's all that brilliant. That's my personal view, and yours is likely different.
Wow, an intelligent take on Bush's speaking ability. From a democrat, no less.
I agree with you on every point in that post (save that of Lech Walesa, of whom I know nothing, and therefore decline to from an opinion in the time I have at this moment).
Let me say this: As a supporter of Bush, I think that he SHOULD try to be more articulate. I think it would help win over some individuals that despise him for his lack of linguistic dexterity. That said, I think its a poor person who can't overlook poor grammar and try to understand what he is actually trying to say. If you do that and still disagree, then you have that right--but failing to attempt understanding is not a very smart way to choose your side.
On a related issue--I see people mock Bush for grammar and diction, and I frequently wonder how they would do in that situation without notes, without prepared statements and without direct coaching. I think MOST, not all, but most, of us would do as poorly as Bush has ever done, if that well.
I know a good many scientists who are very religious also. I may not agree with their particular views on religion, but there is nothing in them that makes them non-scientific or non-religious.
As far as I see it, religion and science are simply two different domains, as they are generally seen. Science is the rigorous search for facts. Religion is the rigorous search for hope, and probably even trying to be a better person.
That said, there are certain religions that violate this: my own religion, for instance, lays claim to all "truth", regardless of its source. That is, we accept as true, those scientific theories and laws which are reasonably well established.
As for reading the Bible (biblios in greek, I believe, which simply meant BOOK!) for help in making presidential decisions, I can only say that there are worse sources of information. After all, he could be reading hustler for advice, which seems to be what a certain other president was doing. (it's a joke).
The Bible has some really interesting insights into decision making and human interaction. Some of it is very old advice, and some of it seems contradictory, but I think many of Bush's detractors would agree that a little more of the "love your enemies" part of the Bible is not such a bad thing.
Sorry, being pro-science is not defined by your willingness to use the bible or not. That is the worst type of non-scientific illogical thinking.
As a side note, having Read the Fun Article, I am disturbed by the way they openly state that they edited Bush's comments, but in reading those comments there are no ellipses, nor other denotation that they eliminated any information. I expected more from a mag. like Nature, and am truly dissappointed. From the viewpoint of a graduate student working on a thesis, I would be ripped to shreds for that type of work. Editing comments should be avoided at all cost (after all, the site was equipped to deal with longer replies), but when necessary it should be obvious where and how.
Okay, I'll grant you that, but I think that absent that feature (which now that you mention it is common, even under linux), my statement stands that just flicking the switch is bad.
I think you would agree that pulling the power cord is bad (and that's the kind of thing i was considering).
actually, from the perspective of the sky-diver, it makes little difference. The shape of the object that you go splat against will have little impact (errr) on the results if your chute doesn't open!
There are lots of organizations for that purpose, and the government should serve to facilitate those organizations, but not replace them (as it currently tends to do).
I am not enamored with the abolishment of government, which is not a libertarian ideal, but with the reduction of gov't power.
What some people seem to think is that Libertarians are all for greed and power, which is not the case. I think most libertarians (big or little L) are basically optimistic about humans--we believe that in the absence of giant gov't, that individuals will act in a charitable manner. There is some justification for this, too.
One major difference between now and the industrial revolution is that currently there is sufficient research that shows that companies are going to do better in the long run by doing things that don't make much sense from an accountant's point of view (like donating to charities, giving employees benefits, etc).
I think that companies, and more importantly, individuals, should be allowed the freedom to act. The time for the government to step in is when there are clear abuses of power (in the individuals case, this means preventing people from murdering; in the case of a corporation, this means making sure companies are held responsible if they break a law).
I firmly believe that gov't should be kept out of most affairs.
For those of you who don't like the current set of IP laws, think of it like this: in the libertarian world, the DMCA would not be a valid law. Nor would many other currently hated laws (PATRIOT act, etc).
I just downloaded the new version, and all I can say is WOW!
Previously, startup times were less than that of IE, now I can honestly say that there is no noticeable difference. It also found/. as soon as the browser was opened, no waiting (previously, on the same connection, there was always some delay--and yes, I know network conditions make a huge difference for this).
If I can show this to people and say, "hey, look, it even starts faster than IE!"--then they will be impressed!
Actually there are some serious barriers to college entry that are currently in place that would go away in a libertarian gov't.
Currently I am not allowed to take more loans than what the federal gov't thinks that I should be able to, based not on my family situation (although the use of the FAFSA would make you think otherwise), but on the supposed cost of college for a college student (it is college dependent, though).
This semester, my allowed budget capped at ~26,000, but once they make the deductions for everything they consider aid (out-of-state expense reduction? what?), I was left getting about $5k, which was supposed to cover rent, food, clothing, utilities, books, incidentals, and pretty much everything else.
Now, I do have an assistantship (pays ~$4000/semester) as well as an outside part-time job, which helps defray the costs somewhat, but I find myself resenting the limitations placed on my student loan amounts by the federal gov't, ESPECIALLY since the majority of my loans are unsubsidized (the gov't doesn't take care of the interest).
In a Libertarian world, this would be different--the government wouldn't care how much you took out in loans (because they wouldn't be subsidizing them), and you would only be limited by how much the banks were willing to give you. Since, in this world, the banks would see you as an investment, they would be willing to loan money sufficient to get through school to those they deemed the most likely to repay it (eg--those who were going into the highes paying jobs).
To those who claim that this would benefit the wealthy, think again--most of them do not need to take out a student loan. I know that if things go as I plan, my children will only need minimal loans (if any) to pay for the direct costs of going to school (play money, such as for a luxury vehicle, will be their own responsibility, however).
Thus, this system would benefit the poor the most, since they would then be able to go on loans, even in cases where they currently could not (due to the overwhelming restrictions on maximum loan amounts that tend to keep single parent families out of college).
So the poor would still be able to go to college, and they would have to earn it (grades would matter!). I don't have much respect for the uber-rich who go to college regardless of their academic skils, but I do have respect for those who earn scholarships through grades.
As a side-note: my undergraduate debt, with zero help from parents (other than a place to live my first year): $0. I did take out $300 one semester, but I paid that off within 6 months.
It's all about getting scholarships, and choosing a good school (Berea is where i went).
I chose my current school on similar principles--good academics in my field, and a good assistantship program.
I'm sorry, but while I agree with you in principle, I'm not sure why you thought he was blaming this on clinton.
That said, I see VERY little difference in the two parties concerning how they treat IP and big business. There are select individuals who make a stand, but they are rare. Like someone else said, free IP is much more a hallmark of libertarian philosophy than either dem or rep party lines.
I think that there are legitimate reasons, and I suspect yours were. I don't think that its a problem--I just didn't like the attitude that the person I replied to was evincing, so I thought that I would defend your position in my own way.
And as to why we argue? we're geeks--we have to argue about something.
Slashdot Mirror
legal costs for 30 minutes--that's a lot more than $20. In certain parts of the US there are lawyers that charge $500/hr. Probably not for that kind of work, but you get the point.
Besides, this would take a lawyer closer to 3 hours. I know how hourly billing tends to worK!
pot, kettle. Black.
It was a JOKE!
Now, back to a job that's safer than feeding trolls.
As a psychologist (in training, mind you) I find this laughable. "Reverse Psychology" is extremely risky--you have to take the chance that no one will discover what you are trying to do. If they do, the game is up.
Now, Bush may or may not be terribly bright, but I doubt that his staff would stupid enough to pull a stunt like that. Remember, such a stunt requires ignorance. If even ONE reporter had an inkling that such was the case, the news pundits would have a field day with the remains of Bush's staff. Granted, you have a point, but it requires that no one find out what you are trying to pull.
Even more, Bush knows that there are a lot of people who don't want him back--lying becomes extremely risky under those circumstances.
Which is one of the biggest arguments that he is sincere--he does things that any politician (or their staff) should know would hurt his chances at election. Thus there are only a few alternatives:
1. He is lunatic (which I am not discounting, since he is a politician)
2. He has done all of this as part of a bigger plot to make untold amounts of money and power
3. He really believes that what he is doing is the right thing, in that it is what is best for America (like he says).
#2 would require that he be really smart--something that most Americans would not readily believe, even though he did go to Yale, an institution that would be pretty upset about charges of giving grades that were completely undeserved.
#1 is mostly a "yes its a possibility" plea
#3 is the one I choose to believe, given that I don't think he's all that brilliant. That's my personal view, and yours is likely different.
I don't usually do this, but:
NO, you MORON! They explicitly stated that some of Bush's response "exceeded length requirements" and were therefore edited to shorten them!
Yet, when I read the responses there are no signs of editing. That's called false reporting or somesuch.
Geez!
Sorry for the assumptions.
As far as his logical errors, I don't disagree--like with grammar, he should try to make his statements true.
As far as WWII starting in 1941, he should know better--and he may well.
i tried opera for a while. Hate it. Admittedly, I never actually purchased it, but overall, I think it sucks.
Why?
1. reduced page size. SOme sites bork on this, and I prefer maximal viewing area.
2. goofy schemes. man some of them suck. others are okay, but overall, it sucks.
3. crappy mail client. I didn't like it, even compared to outlook. now that i use thunderbird, I'll never go back.
so you may disagree on all these, but they are my personal complaints with the browser.
Did you read the article? They openly state that they did.
And some did. And I don't mind that, but to whip out flame bait is a bit excessive.
Here's a hint--if someone is replying to a joke, assume its a joke too, unless they state otherwise.
Much safer.
Wow, an intelligent take on Bush's speaking ability. From a democrat, no less.
I agree with you on every point in that post (save that of Lech Walesa, of whom I know nothing, and therefore decline to from an opinion in the time I have at this moment).
Let me say this: As a supporter of Bush, I think that he SHOULD try to be more articulate. I think it would help win over some individuals that despise him for his lack of linguistic dexterity. That said, I think its a poor person who can't overlook poor grammar and try to understand what he is actually trying to say. If you do that and still disagree, then you have that right--but failing to attempt understanding is not a very smart way to choose your side.
On a related issue--I see people mock Bush for grammar and diction, and I frequently wonder how they would do in that situation without notes, without prepared statements and without direct coaching. I think MOST, not all, but most, of us would do as poorly as Bush has ever done, if that well.
Thank you.
stop that--you're giving me nightmares.
On the flip side, it makes the concept of Hillary for prez almost palatable.
First off, this is NOT insightful. What tripe!
I know a good many scientists who are very religious also. I may not agree with their particular views on religion, but there is nothing in them that makes them non-scientific or non-religious.
As far as I see it, religion and science are simply two different domains, as they are generally seen. Science is the rigorous search for facts. Religion is the rigorous search for hope, and probably even trying to be a better person.
That said, there are certain religions that violate this: my own religion, for instance, lays claim to all "truth", regardless of its source. That is, we accept as true, those scientific theories and laws which are reasonably well established.
As for reading the Bible (biblios in greek, I believe, which simply meant BOOK!) for help in making presidential decisions, I can only say that there are worse sources of information. After all, he could be reading hustler for advice, which seems to be what a certain other president was doing. (it's a joke).
The Bible has some really interesting insights into decision making and human interaction. Some of it is very old advice, and some of it seems contradictory, but I think many of Bush's detractors would agree that a little more of the "love your enemies" part of the Bible is not such a bad thing.
Sorry, being pro-science is not defined by your willingness to use the bible or not. That is the worst type of non-scientific illogical thinking.
As a side note, having Read the Fun Article, I am disturbed by the way they openly state that they edited Bush's comments, but in reading those comments there are no ellipses, nor other denotation that they eliminated any information. I expected more from a mag. like Nature, and am truly dissappointed. From the viewpoint of a graduate student working on a thesis, I would be ripped to shreds for that type of work. Editing comments should be avoided at all cost (after all, the site was equipped to deal with longer replies), but when necessary it should be obvious where and how.
Yes there is::its slower, and not as bleeding edge, but it does work.
The GRP packages are meant for a situation like yours. You just need to pull down GRP snapshots when they become available.
of course it's microshaft's fault.
either that or those stinkin aliens
Okay, I'll grant you that, but I think that absent that feature (which now that you mention it is common, even under linux), my statement stands that just flicking the switch is bad.
I think you would agree that pulling the power cord is bad (and that's the kind of thing i was considering).
q
best question i've seen. most of the other posts are just "this sucks--it can still be hacked!", and are repetitive and pointless.
Mod up parent
erm...
this happens in windows too: you should NEVER just "hit the power button".
I would think even the AC's here would know that!
Water slide maybe?
That would allow enough cushion to slow him down, and help with the heat dissipation.
All things considered, though, I had something of a more natural landscape in mind.
Oh well.
heretic!!
burn him!!
actually, from the perspective of the sky-diver, it makes little difference. The shape of the object that you go splat against will have little impact (errr) on the results if your chute doesn't open!
There are lots of organizations for that purpose, and the government should serve to facilitate those organizations, but not replace them (as it currently tends to do).
I am not enamored with the abolishment of government, which is not a libertarian ideal, but with the reduction of gov't power.
What some people seem to think is that Libertarians are all for greed and power, which is not the case. I think most libertarians (big or little L) are basically optimistic about humans--we believe that in the absence of giant gov't, that individuals will act in a charitable manner. There is some justification for this, too.
One major difference between now and the industrial revolution is that currently there is sufficient research that shows that companies are going to do better in the long run by doing things that don't make much sense from an accountant's point of view (like donating to charities, giving employees benefits, etc).
I think that companies, and more importantly, individuals, should be allowed the freedom to act. The time for the government to step in is when there are clear abuses of power (in the individuals case, this means preventing people from murdering; in the case of a corporation, this means making sure companies are held responsible if they break a law).
I firmly believe that gov't should be kept out of most affairs.
For those of you who don't like the current set of IP laws, think of it like this: in the libertarian world, the DMCA would not be a valid law. Nor would many other currently hated laws (PATRIOT act, etc).
Think about it.
I just downloaded the new version, and all I can say is WOW!
/. as soon as the browser was opened, no waiting (previously, on the same connection, there was always some delay--and yes, I know network conditions make a huge difference for this).
Previously, startup times were less than that of IE, now I can honestly say that there is no noticeable difference. It also found
If I can show this to people and say, "hey, look, it even starts faster than IE!"--then they will be impressed!
Kudos to the moz team!
Actually there are some serious barriers to college entry that are currently in place that would go away in a libertarian gov't.
Currently I am not allowed to take more loans than what the federal gov't thinks that I should be able to, based not on my family situation (although the use of the FAFSA would make you think otherwise), but on the supposed cost of college for a college student (it is college dependent, though).
This semester, my allowed budget capped at ~26,000, but once they make the deductions for everything they consider aid (out-of-state expense reduction? what?), I was left getting about $5k, which was supposed to cover rent, food, clothing, utilities, books, incidentals, and pretty much everything else.
Now, I do have an assistantship (pays ~$4000/semester) as well as an outside part-time job, which helps defray the costs somewhat, but I find myself resenting the limitations placed on my student loan amounts by the federal gov't, ESPECIALLY since the majority of my loans are unsubsidized (the gov't doesn't take care of the interest).
In a Libertarian world, this would be different--the government wouldn't care how much you took out in loans (because they wouldn't be subsidizing them), and you would only be limited by how much the banks were willing to give you. Since, in this world, the banks would see you as an investment, they would be willing to loan money sufficient to get through school to those they deemed the most likely to repay it (eg--those who were going into the highes paying jobs).
To those who claim that this would benefit the wealthy, think again--most of them do not need to take out a student loan. I know that if things go as I plan, my children will only need minimal loans (if any) to pay for the direct costs of going to school (play money, such as for a luxury vehicle, will be their own responsibility, however).
Thus, this system would benefit the poor the most, since they would then be able to go on loans, even in cases where they currently could not (due to the overwhelming restrictions on maximum loan amounts that tend to keep single parent families out of college).
So the poor would still be able to go to college, and they would have to earn it (grades would matter!). I don't have much respect for the uber-rich who go to college regardless of their academic skils, but I do have respect for those who earn scholarships through grades.
As a side-note: my undergraduate debt, with zero help from parents (other than a place to live my first year): $0. I did take out $300 one semester, but I paid that off within 6 months.
It's all about getting scholarships, and choosing a good school (Berea is where i went).
I chose my current school on similar principles--good academics in my field, and a good assistantship program.
I'm sorry, but while I agree with you in principle, I'm not sure why you thought he was blaming this on clinton.
That said, I see VERY little difference in the two parties concerning how they treat IP and big business. There are select individuals who make a stand, but they are rare. Like someone else said, free IP is much more a hallmark of libertarian philosophy than either dem or rep party lines.
I think that there are legitimate reasons, and I suspect yours were. I don't think that its a problem--I just didn't like the attitude that the person I replied to was evincing, so I thought that I would defend your position in my own way.
And as to why we argue? we're geeks--we have to argue about something.