we are not the ones who hate my friend. we don't persecute gays, or minorities. that's your deal. we are the ones who "get out" and see that people are people, and we don't have to fear those who are different from us.
Kerry is no hero to me, I want Edwards. what i really want is an independent, but as long as we have a plurality system of democracy, that will not happen. but the thing about Kerry is that wayward republicans will vote for him, and in this election, every democrat will too. it's not perfect, but it will get us in the door. i, like a lot of liberals, are worried he will not do enough. but that is better than going in the opposite direction, or doing nothing, which are Bush's only two directions. unlike any other time in recent history, the pressure will be on a democratic president to make sweeping changes and really make a difference. if they don't, the republicans will win the next election. and we all know it.
are we afraid? oh yes. we are afraid that the America we handed Bush will be handed over to the Saudi's and to India, and wherever else big corporations send money and jobs. we're afraid that we will come to depend on India for technology the way we depend on the UAE for oil.
we're afraid that we will have a christian theocracy for a government where other belief systems are not respected. we are afraid that gays and minorities will remain second class citizens in a country where all men are supposedly created equal.
we are afraid of all of those things, and yes i guess we do hate, we hate Bush for making us fight for the things that are already ours.
ABB? yes. because Nader will never win this time. no green party backing, everyone one is afraid Bush will get elected next time.
even if all the voters who wanted to vote for Ralph did, it would at best split the liberal vote in half, once again giving the election to Bush.
it's a nice thought, but as long as we have a plurality system of democracy, it will always be the Dem's or the Naz...i mean, the Republicans. if we can changes the system to a representative form of democracy, then we're talking about something. till then, it's all a fantasy.
the problem with capitalism, or any ism, is that it depends on people and companies acting consistantly in a specific way in a specific situation.
people and companies have a way of making their own decisions about how to behave, and defying the predictions of economists who sit in front of computers in labs where real life variables aren't always considered.
the market should, through customer disatisfaction, force Microsoft to build better products at lower prices allow people to upgrade when the need to.
but Microsoft defies the market by buying up competition and killing off or stealing inovative products, keeping it's dominance in spite of market forces which dictate that the more inovative company should win.
they also force revenue through upgrades by making one product that a company needs only work with a certain upgrade that they may not need. this bypasses customer demand and creates a false need.
"Until everyone votes their conscience, we'll be stuck in this dead end game of "lesser of two evils" every time."
Wrong. we are stuck here because we use a single-vote-plurality system. There are better systems of democratic voting where each party creates a list of conidate proportional to the number of seats available.
Proportional respresentation systems. each vote counts towards the party and the candidate. if there are 10 seats, and each of the republicans get 30% of the vote, in a pluralty system they would win all 10 seats. in the system i am speaking of they would get 3 seats. the 3 candidates with the most votes in that party would get those 3 seats.
that way if the democrats got 20% of the votes, they'd get 2 seats, and if 5 independents each got ten percent, they'd each get one of the remaining seats, guaranteeing equal representation.
we are one of just a few democracies who have not seen the light of the proportional system. or you could say that our politicians see the light, and it frightens the hell out of them.
open source zealots think OSS'ing everything is the answer.
they talk as if the proprietary companies are doing something unethical by keeping their crown jewels that they worked to develop, and making money off of them.
OSS has it's place. in areas where the high cost of development software stifles development, OSS can open up opportunities and jobs for Linux savvy programmers and admins.
but in the areas where commercial software is being sold strictly for use by the consumer. OSS stifles the ability to make profit.
why would anyone buy when they can get for free?
there must be a finely balanced mix of OSS and Proprietary to drive innovation. companies will innovate to compete with OSS and add value to proprietary software in order to make you want to buy instead of get for free. this drives innovation in both camps as they keep trying to one up each other.
big companies are paying OSS developers to develop software which leads to innovation, and developers are creating software that needs them to support it which creates jobs.
but companies should still be able to come up with a new idea and sell it exclusively. there is room for both ways. and OSS will keep them from selling it at too high of a price and sparking an OSS version too soon.
when money goes to India, it only benefits Indians
when i buy a car in NC from Detroit, the taxes go to benefit us all(SS, Unemployment, Medicare, etc), and pays our the salaries of our government.
money outsourced is never seen again.
we're a country that does have necessary divisions, but also communal benefits. this allows us to keep equality between the states which does not exist between us and India. this way no one state can exploit another.
Outsourcing is like a man with a fish meeting a hungry man and giving him the fish so he can eat.
now the first man is hungry.
what the world needs is strong economies coming together in order to grow. each economy must be come strong primarily independent of one another, and then decide what areas are appropriate for trading product and service the both offer one another.
we cannot cannibalize one economy to save another.
mod this O.T. "Why should I care what an actor says about anything other than acting?"
what do you do for a living? should anyone care about anything you say about anything other than that?
actors are people with opinions like anyone else. they belong to groups of people and have beliefs. they are also in a unique position to make those opinions heard and support the groups of people that they belong too.
that's like saying that you don't care what reporters have to say about anything other than reporting. really stupid.
remember who thought of it first kids.
Bill would've had nothing to copy if not for Apple. you'd all be using QDOS_2003.
and i doubt that would make you want to buy anyone a beer.
please, no reminders about the Alto or PARC. they had the idea for the gui, and we should all buy them a beer as well. but they weren't the ones to see the potential and realize the vision.
that was Woz, and the fine team at Apple. Then Bill stole it.
if you wanto buy Bill somthing, buy him a clue instead.
the waste is radioactive for centuries. if we start proliferating nuclear power, we will eventually run out of places to bury it.
the places we have stored it now have leaked into the surrounding areas and polluted it.
the more we use it, the more accidents will increase exponentially.
that will be the pollution. this isn't something natural tha we're doing here. uranium may be natural, but splitting that atom creates power, and porblems, tha we have demonstrated that we are unable to control.
the waste is the main thing. any process that produces osmething so dangerous that cannot be neutralized, is not a sustainable process.
no. i don't have to start liking it. and i am willing to lower my power comsumption.
this is typical conservative rhetoric. you take an enlightened suggestion, and juxtapose it against the current situation as if we would reach a point of changing how we produce energy, but nothing else would have changed.
if we need to have lower powered electrical items to be able to use alternative energy sources, then those should, and would, be developed as part of an alternative energy plan. everything needs to evolve together. i guess conservatives just don't think about evolution.
also, no one of these solutions is the answer, all must be used where appropriate, along with smarter ways to get hydroelectric power and development of new clean technologies like hydrogen.
as for going to other planets, i am for exploration. but we better take care of this one first.
Slashdot Mirror
we may be snots, but at least are machines aren't sh*t......
we are not the ones who hate my friend. we don't persecute gays, or minorities. that's your deal. we are the ones who "get out" and see that people are people, and we don't have to fear those who are different from us.
Kerry is no hero to me, I want Edwards. what i really want is an independent, but as long as we have a plurality system of democracy, that will not happen. but the thing about Kerry is that wayward republicans will vote for him, and in this election, every democrat will too. it's not perfect, but it will get us in the door. i, like a lot of liberals, are worried he will not do enough. but that is better than going in the opposite direction, or doing nothing, which are Bush's only two directions. unlike any other time in recent history, the pressure will be on a democratic president to make sweeping changes and really make a difference. if they don't, the republicans will win the next election. and we all know it.
are we afraid? oh yes. we are afraid that the America we handed Bush will be handed over to the Saudi's and to India, and wherever else big corporations send money and jobs. we're afraid that we will come to depend on India for technology the way we depend on the UAE for oil.
we're afraid that we will have a christian theocracy for a government where other belief systems are not respected. we are afraid that gays and minorities will remain second class citizens in a country where all men are supposedly created equal.
we are afraid of all of those things, and yes i guess we do hate, we hate Bush for making us fight for the things that are already ours.
even if all the voters who wanted to vote for Ralph did, it would at best split the liberal vote in half, once again giving the election to Bush.
it's a nice thought, but as long as we have a plurality system of democracy, it will always be the Dem's or the Naz...i mean, the Republicans. if we can changes the system to a representative form of democracy, then we're talking about something. till then, it's all a fantasy.
whomever does the subject choosing was asleep on this one.
yes, i must have more cowbell!
isn't it about time to open source that Morse Code? :-)
people and companies have a way of making their own decisions about how to behave, and defying the predictions of economists who sit in front of computers in labs where real life variables aren't always considered.
the market should, through customer disatisfaction, force Microsoft to build better products at lower prices allow people to upgrade when the need to.
but Microsoft defies the market by buying up competition and killing off or stealing inovative products, keeping it's dominance in spite of market forces which dictate that the more inovative company should win.
they also force revenue through upgrades by making one product that a company needs only work with a certain upgrade that they may not need. this bypasses customer demand and creates a false need.
Wrong. we are stuck here because we use a single-vote-plurality system. There are better systems of democratic voting where each party creates a list of conidate proportional to the number of seats available.
Proportional respresentation systems. each vote counts towards the party and the candidate. if there are 10 seats, and each of the republicans get 30% of the vote, in a pluralty system they would win all 10 seats. in the system i am speaking of they would get 3 seats. the 3 candidates with the most votes in that party would get those 3 seats.
that way if the democrats got 20% of the votes, they'd get 2 seats, and if 5 independents each got ten percent, they'd each get one of the remaining seats, guaranteeing equal representation.
we are one of just a few democracies who have not seen the light of the proportional system. or you could say that our politicians see the light, and it frightens the hell out of them.
they talk as if the proprietary companies are doing something unethical by keeping their crown jewels that they worked to develop, and making money off of them.
OSS has it's place. in areas where the high cost of development software stifles development, OSS can open up opportunities and jobs for Linux savvy programmers and admins.
but in the areas where commercial software is being sold strictly for use by the consumer. OSS stifles the ability to make profit.
why would anyone buy when they can get for free?
there must be a finely balanced mix of OSS and Proprietary to drive innovation. companies will innovate to compete with OSS and add value to proprietary software in order to make you want to buy instead of get for free. this drives innovation in both camps as they keep trying to one up each other.
big companies are paying OSS developers to develop software which leads to innovation, and developers are creating software that needs them to support it which creates jobs.
but companies should still be able to come up with a new idea and sell it exclusively. there is room for both ways. and OSS will keep them from selling it at too high of a price and sparking an OSS version too soon.
balance grasshopper.
it's my name you see.
when i buy a car in NC from Detroit, the taxes go to benefit us all(SS, Unemployment, Medicare, etc), and pays our the salaries of our government.
money outsourced is never seen again.
we're a country that does have necessary divisions, but also communal benefits. this allows us to keep equality between the states which does not exist between us and India. this way no one state can exploit another.
outsourcing is bad, m'kay?
Dean's outta there. and thank god. he would've sabotaged the race and lost us the election.
but this administration has no interest in an active, educated electorate. it only serves as an annoyance to them.
don't you worry your tight conservative ass over it though. we'll take care of that come November.
"Electroejaculation generally requires anesthetizing the animal and is typically used on zoo dwellers." That's the last time i go to the zoo!
now the first man is hungry.
what the world needs is strong economies coming together in order to grow. each economy must be come strong primarily independent of one another, and then decide what areas are appropriate for trading product and service the both offer one another.
we cannot cannibalize one economy to save another.
Timmaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!!!
mod this O.T.
"Why should I care what an actor says about anything other than acting?"
what do you do for a living? should anyone care about anything you say about anything other than that?
actors are people with opinions like anyone else. they belong to groups of people and have beliefs. they are also in a unique position to make those opinions heard and support the groups of people that they belong too.
that's like saying that you don't care what reporters have to say about anything other than reporting. really stupid.
you're not
that battle is over for the ultimate Unix desktop.
it's here.
by any chance, are you writing this from prison?
remember who thought of it first kids.
Bill would've had nothing to copy if not for Apple. you'd all be using QDOS_2003.
and i doubt that would make you want to buy anyone a beer.
please, no reminders about the Alto or PARC. they had the idea for the gui, and we should all buy them a beer as well. but they weren't the ones to see the potential and realize the vision.
that was Woz, and the fine team at Apple. Then Bill stole it.
if you wanto buy Bill somthing, buy him a clue instead.
a good risk assessment: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/ page.cfm?pageID=181
the places we have stored it now have leaked into the surrounding areas and polluted it.
the more we use it, the more accidents will increase exponentially.
that will be the pollution. this isn't something natural tha we're doing here. uranium may be natural, but splitting that atom creates power, and porblems, tha we have demonstrated that we are unable to control.
the waste is the main thing. any process that produces osmething so dangerous that cannot be neutralized, is not a sustainable process.
no. i don't have to start liking it. and i am willing to lower my power comsumption.
this is typical conservative rhetoric. you take an enlightened suggestion, and juxtapose it against the current situation as if we would reach a point of changing how we produce energy, but nothing else would have changed.
if we need to have lower powered electrical items to be able to use alternative energy sources, then those should, and would, be developed as part of an alternative energy plan. everything needs to evolve together. i guess conservatives just don't think about evolution.
also, no one of these solutions is the answer, all must be used where appropriate, along with smarter ways to get hydroelectric power and development of new clean technologies like hydrogen.
as for going to other planets, i am for exploration. but we better take care of this one first.