They are just loaded with political statements under 'anger', kind of funny. Lots of kiddie speak about Bush, North Korea, Iraq, anarchy, etc. Quite entertaining.
Although the judge may not understand the unintended consequences of that ruling, the world shouldn't be held hostage, so to speak, by the threat that they will actually have to do their own spam filtering if this service were to go down.
The alternative in the last election represents a far-left anti-war contingency. Although I disagree with the war in Iraq, to pretend that voting for somebody else (Kerry, in reality, was the only choice) would have made things better is disillusioned. It's questionable whether they would have even gone after al Qaeda in Afghanistan, much less take any kind of aggressive stance against North Korea or Iran developing a nuclear arsenal. Although diplomacy can work (and often does), the far left proponents of that tactic often fail to notice when the people they are dealing with are not of the same sane mind. Kim Jong-Il, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, etc are not like some Senator of the opposite party with whom you can just 'strike a deal'.
Our political system is becoming more corrupt and this two-party stronghold gives us the choice between dumb and dumber. Who is dumb and who is dumber will just depend on your view of the issues, but one thing you can bet on is they will both do harm in some fashion.
Why didn't you go for the National Guard, hmm? Your chances of being deployed over seas to hostile combat zone are dramatically reduced in that organization.
Huh? Where have you been? Joining the NG is probably the MOST likely way to get sent to Iraq right now. The military is relying heavily on reserves/NG and the NG just recently failed to meet its recruiting goals which is almost surely because people know that they might as well join Active Duty because they will be getting sent overseas.
Really? The guy pretty plainly states that he ignores all the warnings and clicks yes/allow/next/install no matter what it says. So he is ignoring the security warnings and installing it anyways just to see how cluttered it will become. Not really a test of IE7's 'security' any more than running a rootkit on linux (as root) is a test of its 'security'.
The actions of all governments with respect to the rights, liberties, and protections of the people have become so predictable that it's depressing.:-(
Is it really surprising that you cannot travel anywhere you want without a passport/visa, etc? The passenger data they are getting is the same thing you would give to the airline when you book the flight.
You obviously do not talk to many 16-22 year olds, some of the views they espouse are frightening.
I've seen lots of them on college campuses recently. By and large, they are not big supporters of the Republicans and the views the espouse and often very left-wing.
So you despise Windows, Linux, and OS X for your desktop. Thanks for letting us know that you are just one of those people that bitches about everything.:)
Yup it's a common scheme in Washington and it is one of the most corrupt things that needs to be fixed. Between term-limits for Congress and a new rule that says only one topic can be addressed per bill, I think we could stamp out a large part of Congressional corruption and pork spending.
Does that mean everyone else supports letting terrorists go free after capture, open prisons with conjugal visits, and no interest whatsoever in a suspected terrorist cell making a call to a city in Pakistan?
While I join you in denouncing some of the shady goings-on, there are non-brutal and effective means of interrogation (depends on your def. of "torture"), there is a legitimacy to not telling everyone in the world where we are holding some of the top-ranking al Qaida operatives, and if done properly there is due process in surveillance (FISA) and this information could lead to the apprehension of cells waiting inside the US or abroad for another operation.
So I guess what I'm saying is that you are begging the question there.:)
What part of... does the smaller Government, individual liberty-touting Republican Congress NOT understand?
The part where their whole platform is being 'tough' on terrorism and getting elected based on that premise. They have found an issue which scares enough Americans that they can abandon some of their other traditionally 'conservative' agenda items like the ones you mention.
He is not trying to appeal to audiences such as yourself, who wish to run a minimalist OS on older hardware until the end of days. He is comparing features of mainstream operating systems for those who are interested in them. Linux and its kin will always be able to run in a less power-thirsty fashion, at the 'cost' of discarding the features he is writing about.
The blurb says that they did blind the US satellite, whereas the article says they merely attempted to and that "It remains unclear how many times the ground-based laser was tested against U.S. spacecraft or whether it was successful." Good old hype.
After all, it runs on gasoline and thus creates demand for oil. Until vehicles are made to run on something besides fossil fuels the oil companies are simply supplying the demand that you and I require to keep the economy running. And yes, there are 'alternative fuels' but people who think that we can just directly switch over are totally ignorant of the required infrastructure it would take for this to happen. Moreover, if 'rising gas prices' are a concern, they aren't going to be too happy about paying MORE (yes, it will be more) for cutting-edge 'green'-powered cars.
Actually, it does make sense in a way. Oil based fuels contribute to detrimental factors in our society that are not reflected in the cost of the product. For example, those selling and those burning fossil fuels do not pay for cleaning up the smog or for all the related health problems likely contributed to by oil.
Why stop at oil? Why not tax all the car manufacturers, trucking companies, aviation industry, and each and every one of those people that uses oil everyday? That's right, it's not cool to hate 'Big Car', 'Big Truck', 'Big Plane'... just 'Big Oil'.
Nope. The law forbids them from raising the prices in California to make up for said cost, so in reality the cost will be borne by oil users in all the US, not just CA. This actually subsidizes the cost for CA residents at the expense of everyone else, a smart move on their part.
You're dreaming if you think this law will work that way and no cost will be passed on. One way or another it will happen. As for being a 'smart move', that only applies if you think socialism is the smartest form of economical governance.
BT says to Shell, "Yeah we're going to stop selling into the multibillion dollar CA market, we'll pull out right after you do." Not going to happen.
If they are taxing the oil itself then you would be correct. I haven't dug into it but if they are taxing the oil companies' 'presence' in the state (like corporate headquarters, state-declared income, etc) then it might just happen that they move resources to areas of lower tax burden.
So here's where this differs from a traditional "sin" tax. Usually, harmful products like alcohol primarily harm the user. Coca-Cola, for example, does not harm anyone who does not buy it. Oil harms everyone regardless of whether or not they buy it.
Oil harms no-one, it sits in the earth and is drilled out. It's a combination of market demand, autobile use, and a plethora of other things that contribute to the problems you are collectively blaming on oil companies.
It hardly seems logical to put the burden of this on the oil companies. While it is in their interests to eventually carry over into alternative fuel markets, taxing the crap out of them to force it defeats the free market and ultimately ends up punishing the consumer. As with many of these types of programs, it will drive California even higher into 'expensive to live in' status. That is, if the oil companies don't just jump ship altogether for a more friendly state.
This is just an attempt at the 'blame game' to punish oil companies and help California seem more 'progressive'. While they're at it why don't they tax Coca Cola so that we can find soda-alternative drinks! Or maybe tax Silicon Valley itself a little higher to fund research into alternative computing?
Slashdot Mirror
They are just loaded with political statements under 'anger', kind of funny. Lots of kiddie speak about Bush, North Korea, Iraq, anarchy, etc. Quite entertaining.
Maybe they'd be better off using the sunshine that shoots from your arse as a vehicle?
Although the judge may not understand the unintended consequences of that ruling, the world shouldn't be held hostage, so to speak, by the threat that they will actually have to do their own spam filtering if this service were to go down.
The alternative in the last election represents a far-left anti-war contingency. Although I disagree with the war in Iraq, to pretend that voting for somebody else (Kerry, in reality, was the only choice) would have made things better is disillusioned. It's questionable whether they would have even gone after al Qaeda in Afghanistan, much less take any kind of aggressive stance against North Korea or Iran developing a nuclear arsenal. Although diplomacy can work (and often does), the far left proponents of that tactic often fail to notice when the people they are dealing with are not of the same sane mind. Kim Jong-Il, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, etc are not like some Senator of the opposite party with whom you can just 'strike a deal'.
Our political system is becoming more corrupt and this two-party stronghold gives us the choice between dumb and dumber. Who is dumb and who is dumber will just depend on your view of the issues, but one thing you can bet on is they will both do harm in some fashion.
Huh? Where have you been? Joining the NG is probably the MOST likely way to get sent to Iraq right now. The military is relying heavily on reserves/NG and the NG just recently failed to meet its recruiting goals which is almost surely because people know that they might as well join Active Duty because they will be getting sent overseas.
Because of a Windows issue with running every user as Admin by default. That problem is going to exist whether it's IE7 or Firefox or anything else.
Really? The guy pretty plainly states that he ignores all the warnings and clicks yes/allow/next/install no matter what it says. So he is ignoring the security warnings and installing it anyways just to see how cluttered it will become. Not really a test of IE7's 'security' any more than running a rootkit on linux (as root) is a test of its 'security'.
Is it really surprising that you cannot travel anywhere you want without a passport/visa, etc? The passenger data they are getting is the same thing you would give to the airline when you book the flight.
I hate it when people misspell pwnz0r3d.
I've seen lots of them on college campuses recently. By and large, they are not big supporters of the Republicans and the views the espouse and often very left-wing.
So you despise Windows, Linux, and OS X for your desktop. Thanks for letting us know that you are just one of those people that bitches about everything. :)
And so, SkyNet became self-aware and bombed al Jazeera and the New York Times.
Yahoo helps Google Gadgets come to YOU!
So the hispanics, whose population growth rate was over triple that of the general population last I checked, are all living in desirable areas?
Yup it's a common scheme in Washington and it is one of the most corrupt things that needs to be fixed. Between term-limits for Congress and a new rule that says only one topic can be addressed per bill, I think we could stamp out a large part of Congressional corruption and pork spending.
Only there would you pay 1700/month to live in a garage!
Does that mean everyone else supports letting terrorists go free after capture, open prisons with conjugal visits, and no interest whatsoever in a suspected terrorist cell making a call to a city in Pakistan?
:)
While I join you in denouncing some of the shady goings-on, there are non-brutal and effective means of interrogation (depends on your def. of "torture"), there is a legitimacy to not telling everyone in the world where we are holding some of the top-ranking al Qaida operatives, and if done properly there is due process in surveillance (FISA) and this information could lead to the apprehension of cells waiting inside the US or abroad for another operation.
So I guess what I'm saying is that you are begging the question there.
After all he's in deep up to his iBalls with this one.
The part where their whole platform is being 'tough' on terrorism and getting elected based on that premise. They have found an issue which scares enough Americans that they can abandon some of their other traditionally 'conservative' agenda items like the ones you mention.
He is not trying to appeal to audiences such as yourself, who wish to run a minimalist OS on older hardware until the end of days. He is comparing features of mainstream operating systems for those who are interested in them. Linux and its kin will always be able to run in a less power-thirsty fashion, at the 'cost' of discarding the features he is writing about.
The blurb says that they did blind the US satellite, whereas the article says they merely attempted to and that "It remains unclear how many times the ground-based laser was tested against U.S. spacecraft or whether it was successful." Good old hype.
But here in the real world other countries do have spy satellites and we don't bomb them. And whoever said they 'can't' do this anyways?
After all, it runs on gasoline and thus creates demand for oil. Until vehicles are made to run on something besides fossil fuels the oil companies are simply supplying the demand that you and I require to keep the economy running. And yes, there are 'alternative fuels' but people who think that we can just directly switch over are totally ignorant of the required infrastructure it would take for this to happen. Moreover, if 'rising gas prices' are a concern, they aren't going to be too happy about paying MORE (yes, it will be more) for cutting-edge 'green'-powered cars.
Actually, it does make sense in a way. Oil based fuels contribute to detrimental factors in our society that are not reflected in the cost of the product. For example, those selling and those burning fossil fuels do not pay for cleaning up the smog or for all the related health problems likely contributed to by oil.
Why stop at oil? Why not tax all the car manufacturers, trucking companies, aviation industry, and each and every one of those people that uses oil everyday? That's right, it's not cool to hate 'Big Car', 'Big Truck', 'Big Plane'... just 'Big Oil'.
Nope. The law forbids them from raising the prices in California to make up for said cost, so in reality the cost will be borne by oil users in all the US, not just CA. This actually subsidizes the cost for CA residents at the expense of everyone else, a smart move on their part.
You're dreaming if you think this law will work that way and no cost will be passed on. One way or another it will happen. As for being a 'smart move', that only applies if you think socialism is the smartest form of economical governance.
BT says to Shell, "Yeah we're going to stop selling into the multibillion dollar CA market, we'll pull out right after you do." Not going to happen.
If they are taxing the oil itself then you would be correct. I haven't dug into it but if they are taxing the oil companies' 'presence' in the state (like corporate headquarters, state-declared income, etc) then it might just happen that they move resources to areas of lower tax burden.
So here's where this differs from a traditional "sin" tax. Usually, harmful products like alcohol primarily harm the user. Coca-Cola, for example, does not harm anyone who does not buy it. Oil harms everyone regardless of whether or not they buy it.
Oil harms no-one, it sits in the earth and is drilled out. It's a combination of market demand, autobile use, and a plethora of other things that contribute to the problems you are collectively blaming on oil companies.
This is just an attempt at the 'blame game' to punish oil companies and help California seem more 'progressive'. While they're at it why don't they tax Coca Cola so that we can find soda-alternative drinks! Or maybe tax Silicon Valley itself a little higher to fund research into alternative computing?