FYI, DFM's are only Windows resource files. With a click in the IDE, you can view the source for these files..and they're pretty self documenting.
Still, I find it fascinating that people object to a commercial product (BTW, I posted the notification that Kylix was out this AM...and was rejected. Argh. Think Cmdr. Taco has an automatic reject script on my id) simply because it is closed source.
Kylix was designed by Borland to fill the needs of existing Delphi and VB programmers...programmers that want to bring their apps to Linux. These applications may or may not be intended for the general linux community. Instead, they may be commercial or private ventures where the open source issues are negated.
Borland is fully cognizant of the GPL issues. They may not release the source to their tools, but I don't believe they will hose us in the end.Additionally, they have stated in the past that they aren't going after the niche filled by GCC and Perl. Instead, they have stated that they are enabling production quality business and database apps through a RAD environment.
If you want to carve stones with bronze chisels, then have at it. Me, I'll go with the carbide tip cutting tool. Of course, I'm partial as I've been a Delphi developer since its initial release and think everything else is a bronze chisel.
RD
I propose to Ashcroft that we create an ASDS
on
Spammer Gets Spammed
·
· Score: 2
Anti-Spam-Defense-Shield.
I wonder if all those rolling blackouts in CA will have any effect on the quantify of spam I receive via e-mail.
And, I like the idea of sending back the prepaid mailers attached to something heavy. Most of that type of mail goes unopened in my house anyway...never thought to send it back at them.
To deal with telemarketers, you can tell them to put you on their no-call list. They typically have sixty days to get you off their lists. After that, you can sue them AND collect $500 per call (I think that's right). Just document the calls and build an audit trail.
Finally, if you have caller ID, if it says unavailable or private, then take that to mean your status as well. If its important, they'll leave a message.
A rail gun typically has two rigid conducting rails surrounded by a large electomagnet. A projectile is placed between the rails. The projectile usually is coated with a thin conducting layer.
The magnetic field is created by applying a large current to the coils. Then, a large current applied to the rails. The resulting "short" circuit vaporizes the conducting layer on the projectile producing a conductive plasma.
The projectile is the propelled down the "barrel" of the rail gun by both the expansion of the plasma but more so by the resulting Loretz forces that are result of the interaction of the electrical discharge and the magnetic field. This force is perpendicular to the magnet field and direction of the current flow and can be quite substantial. It is this force that accellerates the projectile to a very high velocity. Damage to a target is primarily because of the kinetic energy of the projectile strike the target.
The military examined rail guns in the 80's. There was talk of "electric" ships that contained rail guns and lasers at the height of the Reagan "Star Wars" era. The problem with rail guns is they produce a very flat trajectory making them useless for over the horizon applications. Reducing the velocity of the projectile would reduce the kinetic energy of the projectile thus requiring heavier projectiles or explosive projectiles.
Another problem with early generation rail guns involved alignment of the rails. The forces produced in a rail gun often destroyed the rails or knocked them out of alignment. Thus, early generation RGs were limited in their ability to achieve sustained firing rates. I read a few years back that this problem had been corrected. Haven't heard much about rail guns since.
But, the approach of this "juddering" engine and a rail gun at not similar at all. And, until somebody proves otherwise, rail guns are stil confined to the laws of Newtonian physics. Hence, RGs have one hell of a recoil. That is why they were planned for use on ships and tanks as they are the only vehicles massive enough to absorb the recoil. Even the mighty IOWA class battle ships were pushed sideways several feet in the water when she fired her guns broadside.
Clarification is always good.:-) And, it helps to clarify the point I was trying to make.
As the name implies, sedimentary rock is created by sediment precipitating out of a suspension (as you noted, on earth, water). And, as you pointed out, metamorphic rock is rock that has been subjected to high temps and/or pressure. But, you need either igneous or sedimentary rock to begin with. And, only igneous rock come from volcanoes.
So what we have here is not only the demonstration that these sediments could not be formed by volcans or dust (here chemical differentations are mostly insignificant). What we have here is that not only water formed them but that they were formed on different physico-chemical conditions. And probably biological ones.
Did you mean volcanos or Vulcans? If it's the later, then you can bet on a biological process. Naturally, I'd have to wonder why Vulcans would even want to do such a thing.
FWIW, if I recall my geology correctly,sedimentary rock is generally not formed by volcanic activity unless the dust emitted by the volcanos were suspended in a liquid and then slowly precipitated out over time and under great pressure. Ignatious rock is formed by volcanic activity.
Of course, NASA hasn't made the offical announcement. So, we'll just have to wait to see what that is on December 7th.
Interesting perspective. Nice to hear some rational counter-opinion.
A small margin of error, perhaps, but still larger than the margin of victory. The error is also weighted against Gore, because his counties are the ones using punch cards. The Republican areas mostly use optical systems.
I disagree on this point. Optical systems are less likely to be error prone and, thus, require less manual intervention and interpretation. When considering "dimpled" ballots, you are assuming the power to be able to discern the will of the voter. Remember, only the Shadow knows what is in the hearts and minds of men.
Nationwide? The contested election involves Florida's delegation to the electoral college, and Florida may handle it in whatever manner we chose (persuant to the Constitution and what federal law there is, of course). If the election crossed a state line, you could argue for more federal intervention, but it does not.
When an election comes down to subjective manual recounts, this can hardly be called fair when taken in light that the rest of the country (for the most part) uses automated methods. To assume that everyplace else is correct yet do manual recounts in selected, heavily partisan counties is grossly unfair. Who's decision is it to use the punch cards anyway?
We hear of the so called "popular vote" in which there is only a 300K difference between the two major candidates. But, is this count even accurate? I would suspect not.
A nationwide manual recount is the only way to determine valid votes. As the decision in Florida will determine who becomes POTUS (a national position), a nationwide recount is the only acceptable solution (unless one candidates concedes). But, it will never happen for the very reasons you have stated...the other states have certified their results and the results are not being contested. So, the battle remains a state battle.
Nor is there a law saying they are not valid votes. It's up to the discretion of the county canvassing board.
Similarly, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the recounts were in the hands of the individual canvasing boards AND issued a new deadline. The fact that Palm Beach took Thanksgiving off and then failed to make the deadline is not an excuse to extend the deadline (consider they would have finished ontime and their results would have counted HAD they worked two hours on Thanksgiving). Similarly, in Miami-Dade, the canvasing board elected NOT to perform a manual recount. Is this not the rule set forth by the new law established by Florida's supreme court?
I do feel sympathy if honest votes were not counted (hell, I would probably be pissed too). But, how will we ever know the true count? Each time a ballot is touched, it is potentially altered. Just consider the number of chads on the floor following the recounts. If no ballots were altered (assuming non-intentional alterations...to be fair), then where were there chads on the floor and tables. Heck, even a sneeze might knock a chad out or the ballot may be bend inadvertently. At this point in the game, there is no honest, accurate way to perform a manual recount.
But, what I find really sad is the notional of class warfare as put forth by the Gore campaign. Even if Gore is correct (I'll argue he is not..but that is a battle for another day) and the tax cuts Bush proposes are for the wealthiest 1%, consider that those being taxed under Gores plan are the small and medium business owners. These are the people that make jobs available to the lower income groups. Make their life easier by reducing their tax burden and that may produce additional jobs though economic growth.
Also, consider the programs that Gore wants to implement. Where is the money for these programs coming from? If not from the lower income group, then it must be from middle and upper class. Guess what? That means higher taxes for those individuals which will mean one (or more things)...
1) Layoffs as the profit margine is decreased.
2) More people entering the non-working ranks (see 1).
3) Higher prices for goods in an effort to restore profit margin.
Who wins? Certainly not the poor folk.
While decreased taxes may not mean lower prices in the stores, ultimately, they do mean more jobs and lower unemployment. Unfortunately, lower unemployment does not mean less individuals in poverty status. That's another issue that should does need to be address. I don't have a silver bullet for that one. But, I would suspect higher state or local taxes with that income directed towards programs in areas where poverty is higher.
Basically, I'm for new taxes and legislation AFTER all other measures have been taken and still a problem exists. Those other measures have not yet been taken. Hence, I oppose Gore's platform because he will introduce new taxes.
I also don't trust him on a variety of issues regarding personal privacy, military readiness, or his intent to create social policy through the courts.
Its time to end the election, and force the "winning" (if that's what you want to call it) candidate (by new law if necessary) to have a bipartisan cabinet.
Agreed. While I can't stand Gore, I don't recall him ever advocating the abolition of the Electoral College. Hillary Clinton, however, has stated that she would pursue actions to abolish the electoral college in favor of the popular vote.
So, are we heading for a Constitional convention in the next ten years as more and more legal attacks are made against our founding father's principles? Many people I speak with seem to think so.
We all speak of democracy and the will of the people. Many fail to to understand that we are republic and not a democracy.
Why is this so? Simply because of the fact that the original drafters of the Consitution feared what would happen placing the fate of the most powerful position in the world (next to Greenspan, of course) in the hands of illiterates or uninformed. Electors are chosen because they are supposed to understand the importance of their actions as well as the loyalty.
What the founding fathers feared the most is what has happened in this election. Along with the illiterate and uniformed, we now have people who can't determine who they actually voted for (some telemarketer had to tell them) or can't seem to ask for help (or a ballot replacement) when they make a mistake. So much for exercising good judgement and accept personal responsibility for their vote.
True, the electoral college has it faults. But, it has served us well for over two hundred years. We've always been able to settle our election disputes without resorting to violence - partisan or not. Pretty amazing, isn't it?
When the same individuals who can't remember who they voted for or why (or verify where they are registered to vote) learn the concept of personal responsibility and self determination, then I might advocate election via popular vote. Until then, let's keep what we got and end it as the law of Florida states should be the case.
While your statements make total sense, they won't fly here in the US because election law is in the jurisdiction of the individual states.
The legitimacy of this presidency will always be questioned no matter who wins. From a statistically, scientific, perspective, the ballot pool is tainted and biased. The method in which ballots were hand counted has been subjective. Even the initial collection was tainted by the broadcast of exit poll results and "projections" by the media. The skewing is even greater when one considers the "manual" collection processes.
Consider Ballard County, for example. The manual recount reviewing team consists of two democrats and one republican. It took a consensus of two of the team members to make establish the intent of the voter. If all team members are honest (lets assume they are), then partisanship should not be a factor. But, if partisanship does come into play, the republican will almost always be overridded and the results favor the democratic candidate (in this case, Gore).
Secondly, the method of examination has been subject to change throughout the process. You can not obtain true results when the standards or methodology of the collection process is not consistent.
Thirdly, consider that there are sixty seven counties in the total ballot pool. Selecting three counties known to be highly democratic only introduces additional statistical bias and will futher skew the results.
From a scientific perspective, one has to conclude that the election is a statistical dead heat with no clear winner when using the hand recount method. Yet, if the automated method of counting is utilized, a clear winner is determined in a uniform, non-partisan way. In this case, machine counting has introduced a statistically small margin of error when compared to the subjective manual recount method.
The fact that somebody didn't understand how to cast their ballot correctly (nor did they ask for assistance) or to verify that they did, in fact, cast correctly, is not a reason to assume omnipotent powers and determine their will for them. Their ballots, in the election for president, should not be counted UNLESS the entire ballot pool is counted in EXACTLY the same manner. This would incure a state-wide, or more appropriately, as nation-wide recount. Neither state nor federal allows for this. Neither does the Constitution.
Now, consider the military absentee ballots. Federal law allows military members to send mail without a postmark. Yet, Florida election law requires them so many are rejected despite the voters intent being clearly descerable. A technicality? Yes. But, isn't Federal law supposed to override state law when a conflict arrises? Yet, "dimpled" ballots are given merit when no State or Federal law or standard exists to validate their acceptance (at least in Florida). To say "Texas allows them" is irrelevant...there is no Florida law allowing them or specifying what is a valid vote. Ironic that the Gore, if he becomes the president elect, wants to alienate the armed forces for which he would their Commander-In-Chief. In this regard, Bush has the upper hand. He will command the respect of the military which Gore will be despised. Loyalty of our armed forces will never be in question...they will defend the US as they are sworn to. But, they will have no respect for their leader. Expect to see many resignations and lower enlisted retention than normal over the next four years if Gore becomes president.
Finally, all this aside, I pity whoever becomes president. Not only do they have to try to heal the political divide in this county, but will also probably be blamed for the recession we are already entering.
Obviously, my perspective is probably clear, I think Gore should concede (and remain true to his word of accepting the final certification). But, he has indicated he will not due this and instead contest the election in Florida. So, again, we have a bending of the truth and and the law. What a sad state of affairs.
I think you are mistaken about the smaller states being predominantly republican. Only NH went Republican in the North East. Maine, RI, Connecticut, Vermont, Hawaii, DC, Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey all went democratic.
Most of the geographically larger states went republican. However, their head count is on par with some of the smaller states.
This is the way it should be. In my state, even as election results were being tablulated and displayed, there were still a large percentage of votes in 1.5 hour lines to vote. While this probably didn't cost Bush our state (he lost by a 6% margin), it probably had an impact on local elections as they were being publicized as well.
Regarding the western vote, I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment. People may think that their vote is not important or may cause the "I want to vote for a winner" effect like we saw in the 1992 election simply because of how the other states are voting or upon seeing the "projected" winners.
In general, I have a real problem with the way electorial votes are allocated. Consider the fact that it is assumed that, CA, NY, DC and a few others are democratic states and, CA and NY contain many electorial votes, giving the Republicans a 100 electorial vote deficit from the onset.
I realize that this system was created at a time when most people could not read or write (let alone understand politics), but the population was much smaller and more diffuse geographically rather than having very high concentrations in major cities.
I'd like to see something like a fixed number of votes per state and thus give each state a equal voice to the number of political parties on the ballet rather than basing on a particular demographic (race, religion, working class, etc.). The votes should be allocated based on percentage of popular vote in that particular state). The delegates can then vote the whatever way they feel is best.
Why do I say this? Look at the number of states won by both major parties. Those states with fewer electorial votes become meaningless when compared to states like CA, NY, PA or FL.
Well, we'll all have to see how this plays out. Regardless of who wins, this is one for the history books.
Back in '94, I attended the RSA Data Security Conference. Even then, they were pushing the smart card approach to security. Of course, back then, there weren't too many PCMCIA devices available. So, one company came up with a really cool alternative...
They developed a "SmartDisk" (I think that's what it was called), that employed an RSA capable chip inside a floppy-like device. It drew its power from the rotation of the disk spindle and used the drive heads for transferring data. It could provide boot level protection and/or disk encryption. Very slick indeed. Wonder whatever happened to it (They were a UK based company).
Despite the power of encryption, however, there would, invariably, be the person who writes their encryption key down and sticks it to the inside of their desk.
Use encryption (key escrow or secret shared keys for sensitive data) and removable storage devices.
Require the users to check-in/check-out the media at prescribed times.
Use access control to determine access to the work areas and/or media.
Log out when you are not at your machine.
Finally, use common sense and don't leave the stuff laying about where somebody can see or steal it.
True, Slashdot does link to other sites submitted by its readers. But, the determination of who posts these submissions as well any initial comments are responsibility of the/. staff.
As a result, we see highly biased filtering of submitted links and politically charged editorials.
I read in an earlier post that personal opinions of the articles by/. staff should not be in the headline, but rather should be submitted as a comment and commented upon (and moderated by) the users just like any other posting. That is a great idea. If we don't like what you say, then you'll experience our wrath (like you don't now).
Regarding editorial content, it has its time and place. But, as the political discussions on this board have borne out, such content is often highly slanted in one direction or another, put this content in a seperate area rather than in the main stream headline area. Perhaps marking it as "politically charged","unscrupulous", or "unethical" might make for some good reading and discussion material.
Finally, Slashdot is unlike many other news agencies (you do have a substantial subscription, so the term applies). Slashdot gives one the ability to comment on a variety of topics as well as read up on interesting material that might not be common knowledge. Everyday, I find something worth reading (if not commenting upon). I may not always agree with the slant, but/. does provide a useful outlet for ideas. I'm sure others feel as I do. As such, it is the responsibility of the/. staff to take their jobs and responsibility seriously and keep the moderation fair and the trolls to a minimum.
Like it or not, what you say or exhibit influences a lot of people. That influence represents true power. Use that power wisely.
Yes. It would piss me off even if a Republican did it. I don't think its right for any fundraising activities of political parties to get between me, my family, or my dinner. .
I only agree with inconveniencing people for legitimate purposes such as world peace summits and such where the presense of the P or VP is crucial for the success of the mission. Fundraising doesn't qualify in my book.
Funny, because tomorrow (its late so I can say today) several roads and highways are being shut down for the arrival of President Clinton, who is campaining here for Hillary (I live in NY). This is normal procedure for Presidents and VPs. In 1984 Reagan came and gave a speech at my highschool. I also live in the birth place of IBM and he was here to see IBM but since it was an election year, he gave a speech too. Well they shutdown the same (if not more) highways and roads.
Interesting. How do you feel about a non-New Yorker coming in and running for senate? What qualifies her to pack her bags, come to NY, and represent you. Does she truly have a better handle on the issues or is she the best the democrats can do having exausted their supply of native democrats? Think about it.
As for Reagan coming to your HS. Was it a fund-raiser for Republicans or rally speech for all citizens at a time when he was asking businesses to increase production? Was he asking for donations or charging admission?
But, its not particularly about partisanship (although I freely admit I can't stand Gore), but about common sense. A little more planning and consideration would save a lot grief and garner support from people who might still be swing voters.
BTW, in Reagan's case, it really didn't matter cause I think there was only region that didn't give their support, the District of Columbia, because the democratic candiate was so weak.
Frankly, I don't think the democrats had a prayer having been through a percieved weak presidency and high inflation with Carter (I don't necessarily think it was all warranted, however, as Carter inherited a mess to begin with from the Nixon/Ford era).
Yes. I agree security for the POTU and VPOUS is very important. But, do you really think they needed to do this during rush hour so they could attend a partisan fund-raisers....a fund-raiser, BTW, given by a serious Hollywood liberal for the VP of the United States the very day AFTER Gore said he would be not be their lackey (not those terms, precisely, but close enough).
If it were an official visit to negotiate world peace or something, I wouldn't have any complaints. But, for a fund-raiser at $2,500 a head? Get real. Would I complain if he decided to do it 2:30 PM or after rush hour? No, as it doesn't really impose on the citizens he wants to represent.
Better planning on his part would have alleviated the anger and frustration of many people just wanting to get home to their families and showed he really cares about them rather than his wallet.
First, since 1945, the US was in a constant battle to "contain" communism (hence, the Cold War). Democrats and Republicans alike contributed to this effort (it was the "American" thing to do). Funding, in generally, went through the roof for this effort. I admit that during Reagan/Bush, the gov't did grow as did the military (which is what I focused on since that is my background).
I started off enlisted destined for submarine duty. I ended up a navy officer via ROTC and was in the Surface navy. I saw the military from both points of view. I saw morale in the military at an all-time high during the Reagan/Bush era. I also saw it decline during the Clinton/Gore era.
If we did not grow as we did, what would the world situation be today? Would the Soviet Union exist? Maybe, maybe not. But, in their efforts to keep up with us (and us with them (even if the info was basically wrong)), the SU overextended themselves militarily at the expense of the people. People got pissed and communism came to an end in the SU. Are they better off for it? Tough call given the difficulty of the transition.
Who was in charge of Congress during the Reagan/Bush era? Well, since it was a Republican house and senate, naturally, more legislation went through unimpeded. Congress and the senate ran the country. If the American people put that many republicans in office during that time, don't you think that is what they wanted at the time? They were tired of hearing the plight of the Viet Nam soldiers, the poor material condition and disrespect for the military. We're talking about WWII era people who saw the US as a leader. They wanted that status back again.
As for the gov't shrinking under Clinton...it had to to get out of the recession generated by the ending of forty five years of cold war. But, it came at a heavy cost to the military.
As for balancing the budget and paying of the national dept. Balancing the budget is a good idea. We have to do everyday or we either go bankrupt or to jail. I agree our gov't must do the same and they must be held accountable. Paying of the national debt when other owe us as well (and with no accountability) is not.
We excused Mexico's debt (they pretty much decided not to pay us anyway). What were the ramifications? We opened up increased trade via NAFTA with them instead.
Whose in charge of the Congress now? The Republicans. And, who makes the laws in this country? Who make the laws for policy to go into effect? Can you say the Congress and Senate? If we are in such an ecomonic boon, then who really made it possible? Republicans or Democrats?
We are so quick to denounce the Republicans and corporations. Yet, if it weren't for them, where would most household incomes come from? You'd probably be sitting on steam vent with a cardboard box for a house since there would be no jobs or living in public housing. Or, we'd have a socialist (or communist) gov't or we'd revert to a pre-industrial revolution state (there is some positive argument for this one, BTW).
So, is it really bad to make companies prosperous if that means more jobs? Well, that depends. If those workers are working for paltry wages and paying tons of taxes or working longer hours and prices keep going up...then its not so great.
If there were checks on prices, export markets expanded, wages were decent and taxes low, I think most in the country would be better off.
How about you? Do you have ambitions of working to pay the gov't or working to have the better things in life? Do you want to own your own business or work for somebody else all your life and complain when THEY do well?
I hope all political parties are watching this race. It's close (as of now) and both sides have valid points. Maybe both sides will come away with something positive. One can only hope.
Our country's destiny is in your hands. I may not have convinced you to vote against for the Republicans. But, I hope that I convinced you of the importance to vote. If you don't vote, then you really have no basis to gripe if things don't go your way.
If you're in school now, remember that when you graduate, you'll be looking for a job. It would be nice if the jobs were there for you when you do graduate. Of course, it would also be nice if the world you enter had clean water and air and we didn't have to wear Sunblock 2000 when the ozone layer is gone.
Just like you, I want a better world (well, I assume you do too). A lot of what the democrats propose is worthwhile. But, if the democrats come to power, who will pay for all those wonderful programs?
When we wonder how intelligent somebody is, how do we measure that?
The other day, I saw exceprts from Gore's transcript from college. The low grades in economics (I think it was a C or D) and other pertinent courses ( like math) makes it clear that not only did he invent fuzzy logic, but also fuzzy math and fuzzy economics .
I'd really love to see Bush's transcript as well. Since both are went to "tough" and "respected" schools (Havard vs Yale) for the rich, it would be a nice comparison.
Seriously, do I think Gore cares about the environment and people. Yes, I do. But, do I think he's the one to lead this country? Hell no.
Do I think Bush cares about the environment and people? Yes, I do. But I think he's the better candidate for the job when given the choice of available candidates. I really like to see a blending of Gore and Bush, but Star Trek tranporter malfunctions are pretty rare in this day and age.
As for sending Bush on overseas diplomacy visits. Last I checked, the VP is really the one to handle foreign policy. Cheney is ideal for this. In critical situations, meet here in the US and have the veep and the prez attend.
BTW, while I really do hate bringing religion into politics, do you honestly think a jew can bring peace and honest brokering to the Middle-East given the hatred the Palestinians have for the jews?
Do I think Lieberman is qualified for the job as VP? Yes and No. I say no because he has already shown that he works both sides of the fence in regards to Hollywood.
Do I think Gore really wants campaign finance reform? Yes...but only because he got caught in the middle of it all. Does Bush? Probably not to the extent that McCain wants it.
BTW, did anybody check out the fact that during a recent Gore fundraiser in New York (at Bon Jovi's house), they closed off the major traffic arteries for 45 minutes until Gore passed during rush hour? Where was Gore's caring for the American worker when all the American worker wanted to do was get home to their families? Even Howard Stern lit into Gore for this one.
For those that really care, this fundraiser was held the day after the second debate when Gore said, in pretty clear terms, that he wasn't a Hollywood lackey.
This is a moderated group. The items we comment on are posted by the staff of/. They have tremendous say as to what gets posted. The slant is most definitely democrat or liberal (just look at the comments made by CmdrTaco before anyone else gets to comment).
But, your comments are fair and make good points. I don't watch FOX news for just the reasons you described. But, other news agencies are just as bad towards the liberal side of thing. That means there isn't a lot to watch that is objective and fair.
If that means equal amounts of propaganda (as somebody else pointed out the definition of propaganda)...then so be it. But, it needs to be factual and researched.
If you recall, during the Reagan/Bush administration, the buildup was to make the military strong (I quote the 600 ship Navy and SDI). The percieved strength of our military forced the Soviet Union to overextend themselves. Eventually, communism in the SU failed and the "wall came tumbling down".
Reagan also had to deal with the cluster F of Nixon/Ford and Carter and what's his name. Gov't grew greatly under Carter (as did inflation). I don't necessarily blame Carter for all of it. He did many good things (like regional trauma centers). Carter was a smart man who inherited a mess. He then made the mess bigger by going along with a democratic house.
Anyway...back to Reagan...
A lot of factors existed here. Had we not been in arms race with the SU, I'd suspect gov't would have been a lot smaller. But, we would have been unprepared for the events that occured in the Bush/Quale administration.
During Bush/Quale, there was the initial hit of going to war. Following the war, the economy hit the skids. Unfortunate, but it happened and it was predictable. Without the "war machine" running, layoffs occurred and domestic life went south.
Clinton/Gore did continue to reduce the size of the miltary. The navy has shrunk down to under 400 ships if I am not mistaken. Op-tempo has increased by 400%. My old ship (now decommissioned and destined to become a barrier reef) saw Somalia, the Middle-East, and South America and a few other "conflicts" before returning home for decommissioning. Many left service because of the "liberalizing" and "nation building" philosophy imposed upon the military. Active reserve programs were disbanded.
While some say a Navy's job is to be at sea, there is prudence in making sure they get home, see their families, and maintain their ship. When at sea, much of the maintenance doesn't happen. Things break and people get hurt.
The view that Bush/Cheney propose is a lot smaller. While Bush has not given specifics on exactly how he'll rebuild the military, I'd suspect it would entail a build up of ships and increasing morale by bringing troops home, increasing their benefits (for the lower enlisted ranks, many are in poverty) and then giving them the purpose of being the military rather than the peace corp.
His plan to move many programs to the state and local levels will allow them to custom craft their programs. Money will still be spent, but it will be (hopefully) better targeted and utilized.
Gore's plans, while they sound fantastic (I'd LOVE to see many of them, BTW), are going to cost us a fortune. Somebody has to pay for those programs. This means that the tax cuts we've been promised since 1992 are not going to happen. Our "surplus" will initially go to funding these programs. But, eventually, we will be saddled with the price tag. If Gore is reelected in 2004 (assuming he is elected in 2000), you can bet we'll see tax hikes to pay for these programs.
If a republican takes office in 2004, either those programs created by Gore will need to be funded or killed. So, expect to see either no tax cut and a reduction in some of the programs or a serious killing of programs in the next term. This would make the public view of the republican president pretty poor as he's hurting the poor. Its a no win situation for the president (or the American people) in 2004 if Gore is elected.
If Bush is elected and he makes too many cuts. He looks bad now, but he will have the opportunity to either create new programs (hey..congress is elected every 2 years, right?) or risk being removed from office in 2004. End game - a return to the democrats in office to start the cycle all over again.
The "Line Item Veto" isn't exactly what I'm shooting for as it still allows riders to exist on a bill. It's a shame that the LIV was found unconstitutional, but I can see why.
What I'd like to see is one bill/one law/no riders. It would give the president the ultimate LIV...either the law passes or it doesn't. This would keep the presidents power constitutional as it's the same power he already has.
But, this approach would mean that congress and the senate would have to work (probably more than the four months a year they do now). Why? Because they would have to vote on each item rather than a bunch. And, it would make all the special interest groups unhappy.
A few years ago, a bill to allow Physical Therapists to have practice without a physician referral was defeated because it was attached to a bill everybody knew would never pass. My wife was directly affected by this, so its a personal thing. Her income also dropped significantly because of the shift to HMOs for the elderly. This shift caused doctors and hospitals to use their own facilities rather than referring to external agencies. BTW, the special interest group in question that made sure this bill didn't pass was the AMA.
Now, I am truly saddened. Every so often I read the kind of misguided propoganda as touted in "The New Science of Character Assassination" and realize that supposedly intelligent people believe it.
What's worse is seing/. linking to this sort of so-called information, proclaiming it as gospel, and then taking the time to say "We're tying to give the major candidates linkgage, so if you find good sources on the net (or want to write one!) submit it".
What consititutes a "good" source? From the ramblings of CmdrTaco, it would seem that only links to put Gore in a good light and Bush (or Republicans in general) in a bad light are "good".
So much for objective coverage.
I look to/. to provide me with up-to-date information on a variety of subjects. Sometimes, I take the time to post. Other times I don't because I have nothing meaningful to contribute.
But, when such an important decision is pending such as the election of a new president, I find myself disgusted by the liberal and leftist views expressed by the primary moderators of this forum.
A conservative by choice, I and many other "conservatives" don't necessarily think the ideals of the democrats are necessarily bad or evil. We are not all right-wingers or bible thumpers, believe it or not.
I'm conservative by choice yet support a woman's right to choose. But, as a working member of society who has bills to pay and children to feed, I don't believe in the high cost of government that would result if Gore's "vision" is implemented. I want the ability to use it to provide a better future for my family.
I believe that we need to clean up the environment.
I believe we need new, renewable, energy sources.
I'm a Gulf War veteran and a former naval officer. I left service BECAUSE of the downsizing of the military under Clinton's watch and the subsequent demoralizatoin. Yes, congress ( a republican one) has had much to do with this.
The cold-war was over, efforts needed to be done to bolster or economy. They did at the expense of the miltary. The military OP-tempo is 400% that of what it was both before and immediately after the Gulf War. Navy ships that were four months at sea and one year in port were now 6 in/ 6 out. That is not smarter utilization of our fleet, its stupidity.
But, truth be told, the President has very little to do with the economy other than perception. Rather, it is congress and the senate that make the laws (actually bills). The president only signs them into the law. The more the president signs the more he takes credit for. If the economy goes well and grows, he looks like a savior. If it goes bad, we remove him from office.
The president is a figure head. He/she is supposed to represent the ideals of America and be presidential. Character plays a big part here. So, do you want a habitual "Bender of the truth" or a straight shooter (pun intended).
Do you want Hollywood dictating the policy of the country or the people? Do you want judges dictating social policy rather than enforcing law?
Do we want to vote for somebody simply because of their particular stand on abortion (BTW, check the facts, Gore IS NOT "pro-choice". In the past, he has said otherwise. He just changes his views depending upon whatever the populists say he should represent).
Yes, these are big statements. This is a big election. You may not agree with my views nor I yours. But, get the facts before voting. The answers may suprise you. If you are a journalist, report fairly. To say the media is pro-democrate, look at CNN.com. The have extensive coverage of Gore in the "Democracy in America" section. Little, if any information regarding Bush. The polls are two days old as they were following the previous debate. Why? Because the public said Bush won... a view contrary to theirs.
What would I like to see? How about a one bill/one law law that prevents "riders". Each bill should be voted on its merit and not on what is attached. Too much good legislation has been defeated because of the current system.
I sit here and shake my head when people speak of electing Gore. Why? It's because he promotes himself as a defender of citizens rights and privacy and yet has the worst record I've seen.
Bush's plan for blocking software on publicly funded sites is a reasonable solution to a highly charged issue. If you want to get to blocked sites, use your personal account.
Let's look at Gore's record on privacy.
He failed miserably with the Clipper Chip initiative. For those of you too young to recall this blunder, it was an encryption chip to be built into everything. The encryption algorithm (SkipJack) was designed behind closed doors by the NSA and utilized key escrow to allow law enforcement access to your transmissions.
Because of the failed Clipper Chip plan, the whole Key Escrow Foundation was formed. It was because of this initiative that PGP introduced the Ancillary Key problem that surfaced a few months ago.
Digital Wire Tapping Law - Allows the FBI and other law enforcement to readily tap phone lines. Forces telecoms to provide facilities to make this all possible.
Eschelon - VP Gore overseas the the National Security Council. He had to be involved in the decision to deploy Eschelon.
Carnivore - A direct descendent of the DWT law.
Now, if things aren't bad enough, he wants to keep track of e-mail directed to/from young people AND track what the watch. Imagine his friends in Hollywood getting hold of THAT data!
Censorship and Hollywood - He stands before us on national television and tells us how he and Joe Lieberman are for family values and elimination of the marketing of violent and sexually explicit material to young people, but then accepts huge donations from the very people involved in that industry.
And we scream at Bush because of his big business ties? At least he admits when there is a conflict.
Gore claims to be heavily involved in the legislation for the creation and management of the internet. Who has benefited the most in the US from his initiatives? Can you say big media (CNN, MSNBC, ABCNEWS, AOL, TIMES-WARNER, AT&T)?
He sure protected his privacy when they came looking for his e-mails during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and Whitewater investigations. Or, has everybody forgotten about that?
And, let us not forget that Al supported (and still supports Bill Clinton) even as he purgered himself in court and lied to the American people.
Bottom line is that Al Gore is the worst thing that can happen to privacy minded individuals and for people who know right from wrong.
Actually, it would probably streamline things rather than confuse the issue. Already, sales taxes are being collected and reported by mom&pop shops. This is just another requirement. Determining what the tax should be is another issue.
Perhaps the gov't could supply the infrastructure(computers, software, network) to satisfy the reporting requirements. Business owners would then have either opt into the electronic system or be audited by the IRS or accounting firm on a routine basis to ensure compliance.
Or, if the item is purchased via credit-card, make the cc company make the necessary payment transfer.
The only real issue would be potential crime against small shops as they would be collecting more money making them potential targets.
One interesting proposal I've heard bantered about is paying a "federal" sales tax. Every item purchased (with the exception of essentials like food and basic clothing) would be taxed. Items with higher luxury value would be taxed at a higher rate than say, a nice shirt or jacket.
Similarly, road tolls are another available income source...use it to subsidize research for alternative fuel sources and improved usage of existing fuel reserves.
I also think that telecommuting should be promoted to futher reduce traffic. Working from home two or three days a week (if you job function permits it), would drastically cut down on fuel consumption and improve moral.
When my 3 year old was home with a broken leg, we needed to have someone with him at all times. My job involves a 74 mile commute each day. Staying home with him two days a week drastically cut down on my fuel consumption, improved the quantity and quality of the work I do, AND improved my relationship with my son.
Of course, once his cast came off and he was able to go back to school (he was in a hip cast..broken femur...freak accident at school involving a tricycle and another kid knocking him off balance) I had to resume my normal commute. But, it really did pay off in the time he was home (10 weeks).
Slashdot Mirror
FYI, DFM's are only Windows resource files. With a click in the IDE, you can view the source for these files..and they're pretty self documenting.
Still, I find it fascinating that people object to a commercial product (BTW, I posted the notification that Kylix was out this AM...and was rejected. Argh. Think Cmdr. Taco has an automatic reject script on my id) simply because it is closed source.
Kylix was designed by Borland to fill the needs of existing Delphi and VB programmers...programmers that want to bring their apps to Linux. These applications may or may not be intended for the general linux community. Instead, they may be commercial or private ventures where the open source issues are negated.
Borland is fully cognizant of the GPL issues. They may not release the source to their tools, but I don't believe they will hose us in the end.Additionally, they have stated in the past that they aren't going after the niche filled by GCC and Perl. Instead, they have stated that they are enabling production quality business and database apps through a RAD environment.
If you want to carve stones with bronze chisels, then have at it. Me, I'll go with the carbide tip cutting tool. Of course, I'm partial as I've been a Delphi developer since its initial release and think everything else is a bronze chisel.
RD
Anti-Spam-Defense-Shield.
I wonder if all those rolling blackouts in CA will have any effect on the quantify of spam I receive via e-mail.
And, I like the idea of sending back the prepaid mailers attached to something heavy. Most of that type of mail goes unopened in my house anyway...never thought to send it back at them.
To deal with telemarketers, you can tell them to put you on their no-call list. They typically have sixty days to get you off their lists. After that, you can sue them AND collect $500 per call (I think that's right). Just document the calls and build an audit trail.
Finally, if you have caller ID, if it says unavailable or private, then take that to mean your status as well. If its important, they'll leave a message.
RD
A rail gun typically has two rigid conducting rails surrounded by a large electomagnet. A projectile is placed between the rails. The projectile usually is coated with a thin conducting layer.
The magnetic field is created by applying a large current to the coils. Then, a large current applied to the rails. The resulting "short" circuit vaporizes the conducting layer on the projectile producing a conductive plasma.
The projectile is the propelled down the "barrel" of the rail gun by both the expansion of the plasma but more so by the resulting Loretz forces that are result of the interaction of the electrical discharge and the magnetic field. This force is perpendicular to the magnet field and direction of the current flow and can be quite substantial. It is this force that accellerates the projectile to a very high velocity. Damage to a target is primarily because of the kinetic energy of the projectile strike the target.
The military examined rail guns in the 80's. There was talk of "electric" ships that contained rail guns and lasers at the height of the Reagan "Star Wars" era. The problem with rail guns is they produce a very flat trajectory making them useless for over the horizon applications. Reducing the velocity of the projectile would reduce the kinetic energy of the projectile thus requiring heavier projectiles or explosive projectiles.
Another problem with early generation rail guns involved alignment of the rails. The forces produced in a rail gun often destroyed the rails or knocked them out of alignment. Thus, early generation RGs were limited in their ability to achieve sustained firing rates. I read a few years back that this problem had been corrected. Haven't heard much about rail guns since.
But, the approach of this "juddering" engine and a rail gun at not similar at all. And, until somebody proves otherwise, rail guns are stil confined to the laws of Newtonian physics. Hence, RGs have one hell of a recoil. That is why they were planned for use on ships and tanks as they are the only vehicles massive enough to absorb the recoil. Even the mighty IOWA class battle ships were pushed sideways several feet in the water when she fired her guns broadside.
RD
Clarification is always good. :-) And, it helps to clarify the point I was trying to make.
As the name implies, sedimentary rock is created by sediment precipitating out of a suspension (as you noted, on earth, water). And, as you pointed out, metamorphic rock is rock that has been subjected to high temps and/or pressure. But, you need either igneous or sedimentary rock to begin with. And, only igneous rock come from volcanoes.
RD
cjs
Did you mean volcanos or Vulcans? If it's the later, then you can bet on a biological process. Naturally, I'd have to wonder why Vulcans would even want to do such a thing.
FWIW, if I recall my geology correctly ,sedimentary rock is generally not formed by volcanic activity unless the dust emitted by the volcanos were suspended in a liquid and then slowly precipitated out over time and under great pressure. Ignatious rock is formed by volcanic activity.
Of course, NASA hasn't made the offical announcement. So, we'll just have to wait to see what that is on December 7th.
RD
A small margin of error, perhaps, but still larger than the margin of victory. The error is also weighted against Gore, because his counties are the ones using punch cards. The Republican areas mostly use optical systems.
I disagree on this point. Optical systems are less likely to be error prone and, thus, require less manual intervention and interpretation. When considering "dimpled" ballots, you are assuming the power to be able to discern the will of the voter. Remember, only the Shadow knows what is in the hearts and minds of men.
Nationwide? The contested election involves Florida's delegation to the electoral college, and Florida may handle it in whatever manner we chose (persuant to the Constitution and what federal law there is, of course). If the election crossed a state line, you could argue for more federal intervention, but it does not.
When an election comes down to subjective manual recounts, this can hardly be called fair when taken in light that the rest of the country (for the most part) uses automated methods. To assume that everyplace else is correct yet do manual recounts in selected, heavily partisan counties is grossly unfair. Who's decision is it to use the punch cards anyway?
We hear of the so called "popular vote" in which there is only a 300K difference between the two major candidates. But, is this count even accurate? I would suspect not.
A nationwide manual recount is the only way to determine valid votes. As the decision in Florida will determine who becomes POTUS (a national position), a nationwide recount is the only acceptable solution (unless one candidates concedes). But, it will never happen for the very reasons you have stated...the other states have certified their results and the results are not being contested. So, the battle remains a state battle.
Nor is there a law saying they are not valid votes. It's up to the discretion of the county canvassing board.
Similarly, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the recounts were in the hands of the individual canvasing boards AND issued a new deadline. The fact that Palm Beach took Thanksgiving off and then failed to make the deadline is not an excuse to extend the deadline (consider they would have finished ontime and their results would have counted HAD they worked two hours on Thanksgiving). Similarly, in Miami-Dade, the canvasing board elected NOT to perform a manual recount. Is this not the rule set forth by the new law established by Florida's supreme court?
I do feel sympathy if honest votes were not counted (hell, I would probably be pissed too). But, how will we ever know the true count? Each time a ballot is touched, it is potentially altered. Just consider the number of chads on the floor following the recounts. If no ballots were altered (assuming non-intentional alterations...to be fair), then where were there chads on the floor and tables. Heck, even a sneeze might knock a chad out or the ballot may be bend inadvertently. At this point in the game, there is no honest, accurate way to perform a manual recount.
But, what I find really sad is the notional of class warfare as put forth by the Gore campaign. Even if Gore is correct (I'll argue he is not..but that is a battle for another day) and the tax cuts Bush proposes are for the wealthiest 1%, consider that those being taxed under Gores plan are the small and medium business owners. These are the people that make jobs available to the lower income groups. Make their life easier by reducing their tax burden and that may produce additional jobs though economic growth.
Also, consider the programs that Gore wants to implement. Where is the money for these programs coming from? If not from the lower income group, then it must be from middle and upper class. Guess what? That means higher taxes for those individuals which will mean one (or more things)...
1) Layoffs as the profit margine is decreased.
2) More people entering the non-working ranks (see 1).
3) Higher prices for goods in an effort to restore profit margin.
Who wins? Certainly not the poor folk. While decreased taxes may not mean lower prices in the stores, ultimately, they do mean more jobs and lower unemployment. Unfortunately, lower unemployment does not mean less individuals in poverty status. That's another issue that should does need to be address. I don't have a silver bullet for that one. But, I would suspect higher state or local taxes with that income directed towards programs in areas where poverty is higher.
Basically, I'm for new taxes and legislation AFTER all other measures have been taken and still a problem exists. Those other measures have not yet been taken. Hence, I oppose Gore's platform because he will introduce new taxes.
I also don't trust him on a variety of issues regarding personal privacy, military readiness, or his intent to create social policy through the courts.
Its time to end the election, and force the "winning" (if that's what you want to call it) candidate (by new law if necessary) to have a bipartisan cabinet.
RD
Agreed. While I can't stand Gore, I don't recall him ever advocating the abolition of the Electoral College. Hillary Clinton, however, has stated that she would pursue actions to abolish the electoral college in favor of the popular vote.
So, are we heading for a Constitional convention in the next ten years as more and more legal attacks are made against our founding father's principles? Many people I speak with seem to think so.
We all speak of democracy and the will of the people. Many fail to to understand that we are republic and not a democracy.
Why is this so? Simply because of the fact that the original drafters of the Consitution feared what would happen placing the fate of the most powerful position in the world (next to Greenspan, of course) in the hands of illiterates or uninformed. Electors are chosen because they are supposed to understand the importance of their actions as well as the loyalty.
What the founding fathers feared the most is what has happened in this election. Along with the illiterate and uniformed, we now have people who can't determine who they actually voted for (some telemarketer had to tell them) or can't seem to ask for help (or a ballot replacement) when they make a mistake. So much for exercising good judgement and accept personal responsibility for their vote.
True, the electoral college has it faults. But, it has served us well for over two hundred years. We've always been able to settle our election disputes without resorting to violence - partisan or not. Pretty amazing, isn't it?
When the same individuals who can't remember who they voted for or why (or verify where they are registered to vote) learn the concept of personal responsibility and self determination, then I might advocate election via popular vote. Until then, let's keep what we got and end it as the law of Florida states should be the case.
While your statements make total sense, they won't fly here in the US because election law is in the jurisdiction of the individual states.
The legitimacy of this presidency will always be questioned no matter who wins. From a statistically, scientific, perspective, the ballot pool is tainted and biased. The method in which ballots were hand counted has been subjective. Even the initial collection was tainted by the broadcast of exit poll results and "projections" by the media. The skewing is even greater when one considers the "manual" collection processes.
Consider Ballard County, for example. The manual recount reviewing team consists of two democrats and one republican. It took a consensus of two of the team members to make establish the intent of the voter. If all team members are honest (lets assume they are), then partisanship should not be a factor. But, if partisanship does come into play, the republican will almost always be overridded and the results favor the democratic candidate (in this case, Gore).
Secondly, the method of examination has been subject to change throughout the process. You can not obtain true results when the standards or methodology of the collection process is not consistent.
Thirdly, consider that there are sixty seven counties in the total ballot pool. Selecting three counties known to be highly democratic only introduces additional statistical bias and will futher skew the results.
From a scientific perspective, one has to conclude that the election is a statistical dead heat with no clear winner when using the hand recount method. Yet, if the automated method of counting is utilized, a clear winner is determined in a uniform, non-partisan way. In this case, machine counting has introduced a statistically small margin of error when compared to the subjective manual recount method.
The fact that somebody didn't understand how to cast their ballot correctly (nor did they ask for assistance) or to verify that they did, in fact, cast correctly, is not a reason to assume omnipotent powers and determine their will for them. Their ballots, in the election for president, should not be counted UNLESS the entire ballot pool is counted in EXACTLY the same manner. This would incure a state-wide, or more appropriately, as nation-wide recount. Neither state nor federal allows for this. Neither does the Constitution.
Now, consider the military absentee ballots. Federal law allows military members to send mail without a postmark. Yet, Florida election law requires them so many are rejected despite the voters intent being clearly descerable. A technicality? Yes. But, isn't Federal law supposed to override state law when a conflict arrises? Yet, "dimpled" ballots are given merit when no State or Federal law or standard exists to validate their acceptance (at least in Florida). To say "Texas allows them" is irrelevant...there is no Florida law allowing them or specifying what is a valid vote. Ironic that the Gore, if he becomes the president elect, wants to alienate the armed forces for which he would their Commander-In-Chief. In this regard, Bush has the upper hand. He will command the respect of the military which Gore will be despised. Loyalty of our armed forces will never be in question...they will defend the US as they are sworn to. But, they will have no respect for their leader. Expect to see many resignations and lower enlisted retention than normal over the next four years if Gore becomes president.
Finally, all this aside, I pity whoever becomes president. Not only do they have to try to heal the political divide in this county, but will also probably be blamed for the recession we are already entering.
Obviously, my perspective is probably clear, I think Gore should concede (and remain true to his word of accepting the final certification). But, he has indicated he will not due this and instead contest the election in Florida. So, again, we have a bending of the truth and and the law. What a sad state of affairs.
RD
I think you are mistaken about the smaller states being predominantly republican. Only NH went Republican in the North East. Maine, RI, Connecticut, Vermont, Hawaii, DC, Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey all went democratic.
Most of the geographically larger states went republican. However, their head count is on par with some of the smaller states.
RD
This is the way it should be. In my state, even as election results were being tablulated and displayed, there were still a large percentage of votes in 1.5 hour lines to vote. While this probably didn't cost Bush our state (he lost by a 6% margin), it probably had an impact on local elections as they were being publicized as well.
Regarding the western vote, I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment. People may think that their vote is not important or may cause the "I want to vote for a winner" effect like we saw in the 1992 election simply because of how the other states are voting or upon seeing the "projected" winners.
In general, I have a real problem with the way electorial votes are allocated. Consider the fact that it is assumed that, CA, NY, DC and a few others are democratic states and, CA and NY contain many electorial votes, giving the Republicans a 100 electorial vote deficit from the onset.
I realize that this system was created at a time when most people could not read or write (let alone understand politics), but the population was much smaller and more diffuse geographically rather than having very high concentrations in major cities.
I'd like to see something like a fixed number of votes per state and thus give each state a equal voice to the number of political parties on the ballet rather than basing on a particular demographic (race, religion, working class, etc.). The votes should be allocated based on percentage of popular vote in that particular state). The delegates can then vote the whatever way they feel is best.
Why do I say this? Look at the number of states won by both major parties. Those states with fewer electorial votes become meaningless when compared to states like CA, NY, PA or FL.
Well, we'll all have to see how this plays out. Regardless of who wins, this is one for the history books.
RD
Back in '94, I attended the RSA Data Security Conference. Even then, they were pushing the smart card approach to security. Of course, back then, there weren't too many PCMCIA devices available. So, one company came up with a really cool alternative...
They developed a "SmartDisk" (I think that's what it was called), that employed an RSA capable chip inside a floppy-like device. It drew its power from the rotation of the disk spindle and used the drive heads for transferring data. It could provide boot level protection and/or disk encryption. Very slick indeed. Wonder whatever happened to it (They were a UK based company).
Despite the power of encryption, however, there would, invariably, be the person who writes their encryption key down and sticks it to the inside of their desk.
Use encryption (key escrow or secret shared keys for sensitive data) and removable storage devices.
Require the users to check-in/check-out the media at prescribed times.
Use access control to determine access to the work areas and/or media.
Log out when you are not at your machine.
Finally, use common sense and don't leave the stuff laying about where somebody can see or steal it.
True, Slashdot does link to other sites submitted by its readers. But, the determination of who posts these submissions as well any initial comments are responsibility of the /. staff.
/. staff should not be in the headline, but rather should be submitted as a comment and commented upon (and moderated by) the users just like any other posting. That is a great idea. If we don't like what you say, then you'll experience our wrath (like you don't now).
,"unscrupulous", or "unethical" might make for some good reading and discussion material.
/. does provide a useful outlet for ideas. I'm sure others feel as I do. As such, it is the responsibility of the /. staff to take their jobs and responsibility seriously and keep the moderation fair and the trolls to a minimum.
As a result, we see highly biased filtering of submitted links and politically charged editorials.
I read in an earlier post that personal opinions of the articles by
Regarding editorial content, it has its time and place. But, as the political discussions on this board have borne out, such content is often highly slanted in one direction or another, put this content in a seperate area rather than in the main stream headline area. Perhaps marking it as "politically charged"
Finally, Slashdot is unlike many other news agencies (you do have a substantial subscription, so the term applies). Slashdot gives one the ability to comment on a variety of topics as well as read up on interesting material that might not be common knowledge. Everyday, I find something worth reading (if not commenting upon). I may not always agree with the slant, but
Like it or not, what you say or exhibit influences a lot of people. That influence represents true power. Use that power wisely.
RD
Yes. It would piss me off even if a Republican did it. I don't think its right for any fundraising activities of political parties to get between me, my family, or my dinner. .
I only agree with inconveniencing people for legitimate purposes such as world peace summits and such where the presense of the P or VP is crucial for the success of the mission. Fundraising doesn't qualify in my book.
RD
Interesting. How do you feel about a non-New Yorker coming in and running for senate? What qualifies her to pack her bags, come to NY, and represent you. Does she truly have a better handle on the issues or is she the best the democrats can do having exausted their supply of native democrats? Think about it.
As for Reagan coming to your HS. Was it a fund-raiser for Republicans or rally speech for all citizens at a time when he was asking businesses to increase production? Was he asking for donations or charging admission?
But, its not particularly about partisanship (although I freely admit I can't stand Gore), but about common sense. A little more planning and consideration would save a lot grief and garner support from people who might still be swing voters.
BTW, in Reagan's case, it really didn't matter cause I think there was only region that didn't give their support, the District of Columbia, because the democratic candiate was so weak.
Frankly, I don't think the democrats had a prayer having been through a percieved weak presidency and high inflation with Carter (I don't necessarily think it was all warranted, however, as Carter inherited a mess to begin with from the Nixon/Ford era).
Yes. I agree security for the POTU and VPOUS is very important. But, do you really think they needed to do this during rush hour so they could attend a partisan fund-raisers....a fund-raiser, BTW, given by a serious Hollywood liberal for the VP of the United States the very day AFTER Gore said he would be not be their lackey (not those terms, precisely, but close enough).
If it were an official visit to negotiate world peace or something, I wouldn't have any complaints. But, for a fund-raiser at $2,500 a head? Get real. Would I complain if he decided to do it 2:30 PM or after rush hour? No, as it doesn't really impose on the citizens he wants to represent.
Better planning on his part would have alleviated the anger and frustration of many people just wanting to get home to their families and showed he really cares about them rather than his wallet.
First, since 1945, the US was in a constant battle to "contain" communism (hence, the Cold War). Democrats and Republicans alike contributed to this effort (it was the "American" thing to do). Funding, in generally, went through the roof for this effort. I admit that during Reagan/Bush, the gov't did grow as did the military (which is what I focused on since that is my background).
I started off enlisted destined for submarine duty. I ended up a navy officer via ROTC and was in the Surface navy. I saw the military from both points of view. I saw morale in the military at an all-time high during the Reagan/Bush era. I also saw it decline during the Clinton/Gore era.
If we did not grow as we did, what would the world situation be today? Would the Soviet Union exist? Maybe, maybe not. But, in their efforts to keep up with us (and us with them (even if the info was basically wrong)), the SU overextended themselves militarily at the expense of the people. People got pissed and communism came to an end in the SU. Are they better off for it? Tough call given the difficulty of the transition.
Who was in charge of Congress during the Reagan/Bush era? Well, since it was a Republican house and senate, naturally, more legislation went through unimpeded. Congress and the senate ran the country. If the American people put that many republicans in office during that time, don't you think that is what they wanted at the time? They were tired of hearing the plight of the Viet Nam soldiers, the poor material condition and disrespect for the military. We're talking about WWII era people who saw the US as a leader. They wanted that status back again.
As for the gov't shrinking under Clinton...it had to to get out of the recession generated by the ending of forty five years of cold war. But, it came at a heavy cost to the military.
As for balancing the budget and paying of the national dept. Balancing the budget is a good idea. We have to do everyday or we either go bankrupt or to jail. I agree our gov't must do the same and they must be held accountable. Paying of the national debt when other owe us as well (and with no accountability) is not.
We excused Mexico's debt (they pretty much decided not to pay us anyway). What were the ramifications? We opened up increased trade via NAFTA with them instead.
Whose in charge of the Congress now? The Republicans. And, who makes the laws in this country? Who make the laws for policy to go into effect? Can you say the Congress and Senate? If we are in such an ecomonic boon, then who really made it possible? Republicans or Democrats?
We are so quick to denounce the Republicans and corporations. Yet, if it weren't for them, where would most household incomes come from? You'd probably be sitting on steam vent with a cardboard box for a house since there would be no jobs or living in public housing. Or, we'd have a socialist (or communist) gov't or we'd revert to a pre-industrial revolution state (there is some positive argument for this one, BTW).
So, is it really bad to make companies prosperous if that means more jobs? Well, that depends. If those workers are working for paltry wages and paying tons of taxes or working longer hours and prices keep going up...then its not so great.
If there were checks on prices, export markets expanded, wages were decent and taxes low, I think most in the country would be better off.
How about you? Do you have ambitions of working to pay the gov't or working to have the better things in life? Do you want to own your own business or work for somebody else all your life and complain when THEY do well?
I hope all political parties are watching this race. It's close (as of now) and both sides have valid points. Maybe both sides will come away with something positive. One can only hope.
Our country's destiny is in your hands. I may not have convinced you to vote against for the Republicans. But, I hope that I convinced you of the importance to vote. If you don't vote, then you really have no basis to gripe if things don't go your way.
If you're in school now, remember that when you graduate, you'll be looking for a job. It would be nice if the jobs were there for you when you do graduate. Of course, it would also be nice if the world you enter had clean water and air and we didn't have to wear Sunblock 2000 when the ozone layer is gone.
Just like you, I want a better world (well, I assume you do too). A lot of what the democrats propose is worthwhile. But, if the democrats come to power, who will pay for all those wonderful programs?
When we wonder how intelligent somebody is, how do we measure that?
The other day, I saw exceprts from Gore's transcript from college. The low grades in economics (I think it was a C or D) and other pertinent courses ( like math) makes it clear that not only did he invent fuzzy logic, but also fuzzy math and fuzzy economics .
I'd really love to see Bush's transcript as well. Since both are went to "tough" and "respected" schools (Havard vs Yale) for the rich, it would be a nice comparison.
Seriously, do I think Gore cares about the environment and people. Yes, I do. But, do I think he's the one to lead this country? Hell no.
Do I think Bush cares about the environment and people? Yes, I do. But I think he's the better candidate for the job when given the choice of available candidates. I really like to see a blending of Gore and Bush, but Star Trek tranporter malfunctions are pretty rare in this day and age.
As for sending Bush on overseas diplomacy visits. Last I checked, the VP is really the one to handle foreign policy. Cheney is ideal for this. In critical situations, meet here in the US and have the veep and the prez attend.
BTW, while I really do hate bringing religion into politics, do you honestly think a jew can bring peace and honest brokering to the Middle-East given the hatred the Palestinians have for the jews?
Do I think Lieberman is qualified for the job as VP? Yes and No. I say no because he has already shown that he works both sides of the fence in regards to Hollywood.
Do I think Gore really wants campaign finance reform? Yes...but only because he got caught in the middle of it all. Does Bush? Probably not to the extent that McCain wants it.
BTW, did anybody check out the fact that during a recent Gore fundraiser in New York (at Bon Jovi's house), they closed off the major traffic arteries for 45 minutes until Gore passed during rush hour? Where was Gore's caring for the American worker when all the American worker wanted to do was get home to their families? Even Howard Stern lit into Gore for this one.
For those that really care, this fundraiser was held the day after the second debate when Gore said, in pretty clear terms, that he wasn't a Hollywood lackey.
RD
This is a moderated group. The items we comment on are posted by the staff of /. They have tremendous say as to what gets posted. The slant is most definitely democrat or liberal (just look at the comments made by CmdrTaco before anyone else gets to comment).
But, your comments are fair and make good points. I don't watch FOX news for just the reasons you described. But, other news agencies are just as bad towards the liberal side of thing. That means there isn't a lot to watch that is objective and fair.
RD
No, I want objectivity.
If that means equal amounts of propaganda (as somebody else pointed out the definition of propaganda)...then so be it. But, it needs to be factual and researched.
If you recall, during the Reagan/Bush administration, the buildup was to make the military strong (I quote the 600 ship Navy and SDI). The percieved strength of our military forced the Soviet Union to overextend themselves. Eventually, communism in the SU failed and the "wall came tumbling down".
Reagan also had to deal with the cluster F of Nixon/Ford and Carter and what's his name. Gov't grew greatly under Carter (as did inflation). I don't necessarily blame Carter for all of it. He did many good things (like regional trauma centers). Carter was a smart man who inherited a mess. He then made the mess bigger by going along with a democratic house.
Anyway...back to Reagan...
A lot of factors existed here. Had we not been in arms race with the SU, I'd suspect gov't would have been a lot smaller. But, we would have been unprepared for the events that occured in the Bush/Quale administration.
During Bush/Quale, there was the initial hit of going to war. Following the war, the economy hit the skids. Unfortunate, but it happened and it was predictable. Without the "war machine" running, layoffs occurred and domestic life went south.
Clinton/Gore did continue to reduce the size of the miltary. The navy has shrunk down to under 400 ships if I am not mistaken. Op-tempo has increased by 400%. My old ship (now decommissioned and destined to become a barrier reef) saw Somalia, the Middle-East, and South America and a few other "conflicts" before returning home for decommissioning. Many left service because of the "liberalizing" and "nation building" philosophy imposed upon the military. Active reserve programs were disbanded.
While some say a Navy's job is to be at sea, there is prudence in making sure they get home, see their families, and maintain their ship. When at sea, much of the maintenance doesn't happen. Things break and people get hurt.
The view that Bush/Cheney propose is a lot smaller. While Bush has not given specifics on exactly how he'll rebuild the military, I'd suspect it would entail a build up of ships and increasing morale by bringing troops home, increasing their benefits (for the lower enlisted ranks, many are in poverty) and then giving them the purpose of being the military rather than the peace corp.
His plan to move many programs to the state and local levels will allow them to custom craft their programs. Money will still be spent, but it will be (hopefully) better targeted and utilized.
Gore's plans, while they sound fantastic (I'd LOVE to see many of them, BTW), are going to cost us a fortune. Somebody has to pay for those programs. This means that the tax cuts we've been promised since 1992 are not going to happen. Our "surplus" will initially go to funding these programs. But, eventually, we will be saddled with the price tag. If Gore is reelected in 2004 (assuming he is elected in 2000), you can bet we'll see tax hikes to pay for these programs.
If a republican takes office in 2004, either those programs created by Gore will need to be funded or killed. So, expect to see either no tax cut and a reduction in some of the programs or a serious killing of programs in the next term. This would make the public view of the republican president pretty poor as he's hurting the poor. Its a no win situation for the president (or the American people) in 2004 if Gore is elected.
If Bush is elected and he makes too many cuts. He looks bad now, but he will have the opportunity to either create new programs (hey..congress is elected every 2 years, right?) or risk being removed from office in 2004. End game - a return to the democrats in office to start the cycle all over again.
RD
The "Line Item Veto" isn't exactly what I'm shooting for as it still allows riders to exist on a bill. It's a shame that the LIV was found unconstitutional, but I can see why.
What I'd like to see is one bill/one law/no riders. It would give the president the ultimate LIV...either the law passes or it doesn't. This would keep the presidents power constitutional as it's the same power he already has.
But, this approach would mean that congress and the senate would have to work (probably more than the four months a year they do now). Why? Because they would have to vote on each item rather than a bunch. And, it would make all the special interest groups unhappy.
A few years ago, a bill to allow Physical Therapists to have practice without a physician referral was defeated because it was attached to a bill everybody knew would never pass. My wife was directly affected by this, so its a personal thing. Her income also dropped significantly because of the shift to HMOs for the elderly. This shift caused doctors and hospitals to use their own facilities rather than referring to external agencies. BTW, the special interest group in question that made sure this bill didn't pass was the AMA.
Now, I am truly saddened. Every so often I read the kind of misguided propoganda as touted in "The New Science of Character Assassination" and realize that supposedly intelligent people believe it.
/. linking to this sort of so-called information, proclaiming it as gospel, and then taking the time to say "We're tying to give the major candidates linkgage, so if you find good sources on the net (or want to write one!) submit it".
/. to provide me with up-to-date information on a variety of subjects. Sometimes, I take the time to post. Other times I don't because I have nothing meaningful to contribute.
What's worse is seing
What consititutes a "good" source? From the ramblings of CmdrTaco, it would seem that only links to put Gore in a good light and Bush (or Republicans in general) in a bad light are "good".
So much for objective coverage.
I look to
But, when such an important decision is pending such as the election of a new president, I find myself disgusted by the liberal and leftist views expressed by the primary moderators of this forum.
A conservative by choice, I and many other "conservatives" don't necessarily think the ideals of the democrats are necessarily bad or evil. We are not all right-wingers or bible thumpers, believe it or not.
I'm conservative by choice yet support a woman's right to choose. But, as a working member of society who has bills to pay and children to feed, I don't believe in the high cost of government that would result if Gore's "vision" is implemented. I want the ability to use it to provide a better future for my family.
I believe that we need to clean up the environment.
I believe we need new, renewable, energy sources.
I'm a Gulf War veteran and a former naval officer. I left service BECAUSE of the downsizing of the military under Clinton's watch and the subsequent demoralizatoin. Yes, congress ( a republican one) has had much to do with this.
The cold-war was over, efforts needed to be done to bolster or economy. They did at the expense of the miltary. The military OP-tempo is 400% that of what it was both before and immediately after the Gulf War. Navy ships that were four months at sea and one year in port were now 6 in/ 6 out. That is not smarter utilization of our fleet, its stupidity.
But, truth be told, the President has very little to do with the economy other than perception. Rather, it is congress and the senate that make the laws (actually bills). The president only signs them into the law. The more the president signs the more he takes credit for. If the economy goes well and grows, he looks like a savior. If it goes bad, we remove him from office.
The president is a figure head. He/she is supposed to represent the ideals of America and be presidential. Character plays a big part here. So, do you want a habitual "Bender of the truth" or a straight shooter (pun intended).
Do you want Hollywood dictating the policy of the country or the people? Do you want judges dictating social policy rather than enforcing law?
Do we want to vote for somebody simply because of their particular stand on abortion (BTW, check the facts, Gore IS NOT "pro-choice". In the past, he has said otherwise. He just changes his views depending upon whatever the populists say he should represent).
Yes, these are big statements. This is a big election. You may not agree with my views nor I yours. But, get the facts before voting. The answers may suprise you. If you are a journalist, report fairly. To say the media is pro-democrate, look at CNN.com. The have extensive coverage of Gore in the "Democracy in America" section. Little, if any information regarding Bush. The polls are two days old as they were following the previous debate. Why? Because the public said Bush won... a view contrary to theirs.
What would I like to see? How about a one bill/one law law that prevents "riders". Each bill should be voted on its merit and not on what is attached. Too much good legislation has been defeated because of the current system.
RD
I sit here and shake my head when people speak of electing Gore. Why? It's because he promotes himself as a defender of citizens rights and privacy and yet has the worst record I've seen.
Bush's plan for blocking software on publicly funded sites is a reasonable solution to a highly charged issue. If you want to get to blocked sites, use your personal account.
Let's look at Gore's record on privacy.
He failed miserably with the Clipper Chip initiative. For those of you too young to recall this blunder, it was an encryption chip to be built into everything. The encryption algorithm (SkipJack) was designed behind closed doors by the NSA and utilized key escrow to allow law enforcement access to your transmissions.
Because of the failed Clipper Chip plan, the whole Key Escrow Foundation was formed. It was because of this initiative that PGP introduced the Ancillary Key problem that surfaced a few months ago.
Digital Wire Tapping Law - Allows the FBI and other law enforcement to readily tap phone lines. Forces telecoms to provide facilities to make this all possible.
Eschelon - VP Gore overseas the the National Security Council. He had to be involved in the decision to deploy Eschelon.
Carnivore - A direct descendent of the DWT law.
Now, if things aren't bad enough, he wants to keep track of e-mail directed to/from young people AND track what the watch. Imagine his friends in Hollywood getting hold of THAT data!
Censorship and Hollywood - He stands before us on national television and tells us how he and Joe Lieberman are for family values and elimination of the marketing of violent and sexually explicit material to young people, but then accepts huge donations from the very people involved in that industry.
And we scream at Bush because of his big business ties? At least he admits when there is a conflict.
Gore claims to be heavily involved in the legislation for the creation and management of the internet. Who has benefited the most in the US from his initiatives? Can you say big media (CNN, MSNBC, ABCNEWS, AOL, TIMES-WARNER, AT&T)?
He sure protected his privacy when they came looking for his e-mails during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and Whitewater investigations. Or, has everybody forgotten about that?
And, let us not forget that Al supported (and still supports Bill Clinton) even as he purgered himself in court and lied to the American people.
Bottom line is that Al Gore is the worst thing that can happen to privacy minded individuals and for people who know right from wrong.
Actually, it would probably streamline things rather than confuse the issue. Already, sales taxes are being collected and reported by mom&pop shops. This is just another requirement. Determining what the tax should be is another issue.
Perhaps the gov't could supply the infrastructure(computers, software, network) to satisfy the reporting requirements. Business owners would then have either opt into the electronic system or be audited by the IRS or accounting firm on a routine basis to ensure compliance.
Or, if the item is purchased via credit-card, make the cc company make the necessary payment transfer.
The only real issue would be potential crime against small shops as they would be collecting more money making them potential targets.
One interesting proposal I've heard bantered about is paying a "federal" sales tax. Every item purchased (with the exception of essentials like food and basic clothing) would be taxed. Items with higher luxury value would be taxed at a higher rate than say, a nice shirt or jacket.
Similarly, road tolls are another available income source...use it to subsidize research for alternative fuel sources and improved usage of existing fuel reserves.
I also think that telecommuting should be promoted to futher reduce traffic. Working from home two or three days a week (if you job function permits it), would drastically cut down on fuel consumption and improve moral.
When my 3 year old was home with a broken leg, we needed to have someone with him at all times. My job involves a 74 mile commute each day. Staying home with him two days a week drastically cut down on my fuel consumption, improved the quantity and quality of the work I do, AND improved my relationship with my son.
Of course, once his cast came off and he was able to go back to school (he was in a hip cast..broken femur...freak accident at school involving a tricycle and another kid knocking him off balance) I had to resume my normal commute. But, it really did pay off in the time he was home (10 weeks).
RD