Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U
on
US Stem Cells Contaminated
·
· Score: 2, Informative
My point is not meaningless. What I was saying is that you cannot cut funding that does not yet exist. It is not accurate to say that he cut funding as some people are saying.
Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U
on
US Stem Cells Contaminated
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Bush was the first President to fund stem cell research at all so those saying that he cut funding are not accurate either.
That implies that one comes with the game. The cds are in my car so I do not know for sure either way. Every comment I have seen from Valve when asked about a manual simply said that one would not be included and that you could buy the official prima Strategy guide.
If anyone knows for sure whether there is a PDF manual on the cd please post a reply. If that is the case I will run out to my car to get the cds. If that is not the case I will do without and still love the game, but I will not buy a prima strategy guide. I agree that there is far too much whining on Slashdot, but in this case Valve has made some questionable business decisions and the whining is legitimate. It does not take away from the game itself though(unless you are on dial-up).
This does not effect me anymore, But I am still very annoyed by it. You cannot get broadband everywhere, so those with a dial up connection(me a couple months ago) will have to connect just to install the game. They will have to go through the hassle of creating a steam account(which takes a while to do on a dial-up) just to play the single player game. By all means impliment this in the multiplayer, but the single player should not require that.
I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone complaining about the lack of a manual. I was looking forward to reading that in the bathroom at work today to hold me over until I can get home to install the game.
WWF sued WCW for using "Hulk" when Hogan switched over. Marvel then sued WWF for using "Hulk" for all those years. To the best of my knowledge WCW decided to call him Hollywood Hogan at that point and WWF dropped it's suit. When WWF dropped it's suit then Marvel dropped thiers. In that case Marvel clearly had to counter sue or WWF would have set a precidence and taken the copywright for "Hulk". Incedently the name Hulk Hogan was taken from the Incredible Hulk TV show with Lou Ferregno(sorry if I misspelled that).
Because he did not start or create the company, he just created the characters that helped it grow. Bill Gates founded MS, Stan Lee did not found Marvel. Gates also still has power at MS, even if he doesn't have his hands in everything they do. Stan Lee does not have power at marvel. It is argueable that he never really did.
You can't blame Stan Lee. He hasn't been anything more than a figurehead in a long time. To the best of my knowledge he does not work for the company in any way at the moment. Blame the company not "The Man."
Simply put, the original commenort asked for his rights back and I am pointing out that he has not lost any. The person who replied to me pointed out how he thought others had lost thiers. Regardless of the correctness of his statement, it was not an answer to the question posed. The original comment was not can these other people that are not me have thier rights back, it was can I have my rights back. I'm pretty sure it was an offhanded joke that represented how he felt, as was my comment. My comment was thus relevant to his, the reply to mine attempted to be but was slightly off subject, yours was completely irrelavent. If anyone has fed a troll, it was myself for repling to your obviously charged comment.
I have also been trying to point out that most of the people who bash the Patriot act have not read it and do not really know the facts about what they are bashing. I have issues with it too, but it is not the huge affront to civil liberties that everyone seems to think it is. MOST of the powers granted by the Patriot act were already there, just not cleanly laid out on paper. It actually created more regulations on some of them than were previously available. There are valid reasons to hate it, and there are many that have read it and still feel very strongly against it. I seriously doubt most of the posters replying to this story have though based on their comments.
How about the right to know if the government has peaked at my medical records, or noticed what books I've checked out at the library? Now, I can't prove they have, but no one can prove they have not since I simply don't have the right to know. I would like that right, and I would like the right to not have to think "Anything I check out here can be used against me" while I browse for books.
If the US government wants freedom to be "on the march" shouldn't we, as an example to the nations we wish to make free, be steadfast in preserving our own rights and freedoms? While the death of 4,000 on 9/11 was of course a tragedy and measures need to be taken to make us safer, is sacrificing freedom worth it? About 40,000 people die in car accidents every year, yet we don't have a "war on cars" that I am aware of, and I'm pretty sure in every state you can drive before you are legally an adult.
Americans are still very emotional about 9/11, and will likely remain that way for years to come, just as it was with Pearl Harbor. However we can learn from history, and I tend to believe that perhaps half a century from now the PATRIOT Act will be viewed almost as negatively as the Japanese Internment after Pearl Harbor is viewed today.
You are safe in assuming that your records have not been looked at because that particular clause does require notification after use. Once again a reply getting modded insightful for just spewing retoric. Hasn't anyone here actually read the Patriot Act? It is not necessary, but it is also not nearly as bad as the media would have you beleive. Most of the abilities that are given were already there for certain other kinds of accused criminals, just not terrorists.
I agree with your second paragraph. We should be steadfast in protecting our own freedoms, we should also be informed about what we are fighting for or against. Anyone who wants to complain that the Patriot Act violates thier freedoms needs to actually read it for themselves. All the Patriot act really does is give law enforcement the tools they need to investigated suspected terrorists. Many of these tools were already available for law enforcement, but not clealy defined. For example "delay notice search warrents" existed prior to the patriot act, but not there is a set way of obtaining them. Take a look at United States vs Dalia or United States vs Freitas for examples of this being used long before there was a patriot act. These tools are nothing new and have already stood the test of Constitutionality when used in non-terrorist investigations.
If the media continues to publish the current factless propaganda on it you are probably right.
Sure I can.
My right to ask for information that is in the public domain.
I was told by the FBI agents and Federal Marshall that came to my door that while "Yes, you're completely right that the county clerks office is required to give you copies of various maps if you request and pay the copy fee, but the PATRIOT Act makes it illegal for you to ASK for them."
Now, last time I checked, that was a violation of Free Speech. To say I can't ASK for something is the wrong way to go about things if you're worried about the "wrong" people to get this kind of information. (Maps of zoning, municipal buildings, etc)
The reason I got maps at the County office: I was recreating my home town in SimCity2000.
There is nothing in the Patriot Act that says that you could not ask for maps. If someone has denied you maps based on the Patriot Act then they themselves have not read it. I doubt the truth in your example, but if it did happen to you, you were either talking to someone with no understanding of his job, or you were lied to plain and simple. This is not the Patriot Act effecting you, it is an employee not understanding thier job effecting you.
Right to counsel. Right to trial. Right to confront witnesses against me. Protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Protection against unwarranted searches.
How that got modded insightful I will never know. Again I asked what rights YOU have lost. I'm better you personally have not been affected at all by anything Ashcroft has done. As for the unwarranted searches, they still have to have approval by a judge before they can do any kind o search. It may not be an actual warrant, but they still have to show a cause before any judge would approve it. Try reading the Patriot Act before just throwing out the standard propaganda against it.
Right to confront witnesses against you? Since when has that been a right? I don't see that in the Bill of rights anywhere.
Face it you have not been effected one bit by anything Ashcroft has done.
There has been an overwhelming call on the City of Heroes forums for the Superstrength Powerset to be added to scrappers or for a new powerset to be created that would allow similar looking attacks. Has this been considered by the developers or are there any other plans in the work to grant the overwhelming request to "punch the bejeezus out of things"?
I realize that there are balance concerns, but most of the posters are simply asking for a non-skilled punch based powerset. Essentially it is a visual issue more than anything else that is preventing players from playing the type of character that they truely want to.
I tend to think that the previous events have just been tests for something big when they release City of Villians.
I took part in the test of the halloween thing on the test Sever Tuesday, and it was certainly fun. You don't know when you click on a door if you are going to get a treat(insp, enhancement, temp power, etc) or a trick(Zombie, ghost, witch, etc attacking you). They said that it was only a small part of the event, but that alone was far more fun then I had anticipated. I for one can't wait until this weekend to see what they have cooked up.
I mentioned some other parties in my post as well. We have two Parties in power though. Most of the other parties are mirror copies of the ones in power. I see very little difference between the Green Party and the Democrats for example. The Libertarians are considerably different, but I have my issues with them as well. I am an independant voter that has no desire to join any party. Adding more parties though does not fix the problem, it just spreads it between more groups.
The TWO party system is quite possibly the worst thing that could have ever happened to the US political system. This was not what the founding fathers intended and though they were not perfect and did make mistakes on this issue they were correct. George Washington on his way out noticed the formation of political parties and stated that it was the worst thing that could happen to the country. I agree.
Both parties at the moment are mirror images of each other. Their values and possitions on some issues are different, but they behave in the same manor. I for one am tired of voting for the lesser of evils and as long as we have a two party system that is what a majority of Americans will have to do. The independant, Libertarian, or green party candidates would get my vote but most of them are no better and would just create another mirror of the current parties.
You are correct. States do decide how their votes go, but most (if not all) states have laws that regulate how the electorate must vote. Currently, all but two states operate in a "Winner takes all" manner. Maine and Nebraska being the exceptions.
Glad to see my memory hasn't failed me. That being the case if we want the votes to be splitable(which I do atleast) we should start at the state level instead of the federal.
This is a "Mom and apple pie" question. No candidate will say they're for animal abuse, yet I don't see any president actually doing anything about it.
I'm not sure that they should either. This seems like a state or city issue to me. The higher and more seperated you get from the problem the less effective you will be in solving it. I think the penalties for animal abuse are rediculously low, but I don't want Congress dealing with the issue, I want the state dealing with it.
There are thousands of deaths annually in the U.S. that are attributable to alcohol overdose. In addition, alcohol intoxication is associated with violent behavior. Yet alcohol remains widely available. Another common drug, marijuana, cannot kill by overdose, and does not cause violent behavior. In light of these facts, how will your administration rationalize the continued prohibition of marijuana, which is a less harmful drug?
Both drugs destroy people's lives, both drugs can lead to further illegal activity, and both drugs have long term negative effects on the human body. So what is the difference between the two? One leads to worse drugs and the other does not. I'm sure I will feel the spewing of vial hate because I don't support legalizing marijuana, but it is a gateway drug. You can scream about how it isn't and throw your reports at me all day, it will not do any good. I could easily throw reports that support my point of view right back at you. The bottom line for me is what I have seen first hand. I have seen strict anti-drug people start using marijuana because they became convinced it wasn't a real drug and then step by step work thier way up to much harder drugs. I have also seen the effects that it takes on middle aged individuals who spend thier whole lives doing it. The mind is not fully there any more, and self control is a thing of the past. I would support outlawing alcohol as well if i wasn't for the fact that we have seen it doesn't work. Outlawing alcohol just leads to organized crime, outlawing pot just leads to people growing it in thier basement.
I think perhaps a polite answer would be "you need to read up on the separation of powers and why the system is setup that way. The judges are given life apointments so that they can concentrate on upholding the law and constitution, not making people happy."
That is the problem, I have read up on the separation of powers and the courts currently are too powerful. Thier original power was to interpret the laws. Determining the Constitutionality of them was a power the Supreme Court took for itself after the fact. The problem is that judges are using thier personal views and not a logical view of the laws to base thier decisions. What is the point in Congress passing a law that the majority wants(like the no call lists) when a single non-elected judge can just throw it out? It is much easier to have a judge make the laws then getting them pushed through Congress so that is what is happening lately.
As for the comment before about this not being an issue. It is not an issue if you agree with this crusade. Claiming that the only people that care about this issue are the priviledged and the Rublican is down right offensive. I am and always have been a dirt poor Independant. Both Republican and Demacrats make me sick and I feel that political parties are the worst thing that has ever happened to our political system. Everyone is screaming that only the rich benefitted from the tax cuts, well if that is the case how come all the rich people(ie Hollywood, Gates, etc) are Kerry supporters? If you do a tax cut based on percentages it only makes sense that the people that have paid the most in are also the ones that will get the most back. The rich pay a far greater percentage than the rest of us as a penality for being successful.
isn't worried about paying for college
Wrong again. I will be in debt until I'm 40 paying on student loans. I didn't qualify for a single grant because I'm a white male. How is that system fair when the majority is penalized for being the majority. Grants should be based on need and not race. Race should not factor in at all.
Slashdot Mirror
My point is not meaningless. What I was saying is that you cannot cut funding that does not yet exist. It is not accurate to say that he cut funding as some people are saying.
Bush was the first President to fund stem cell research at all so those saying that he cut funding are not accurate either.
Which CD is the manual on? I can't seem to find it.
Glad to hear I am not the only one that does that.
That implies that one comes with the game. The cds are in my car so I do not know for sure either way. Every comment I have seen from Valve when asked about a manual simply said that one would not be included and that you could buy the official prima Strategy guide.
If anyone knows for sure whether there is a PDF manual on the cd please post a reply. If that is the case I will run out to my car to get the cds. If that is not the case I will do without and still love the game, but I will not buy a prima strategy guide. I agree that there is far too much whining on Slashdot, but in this case Valve has made some questionable business decisions and the whining is legitimate. It does not take away from the game itself though(unless you are on dial-up).
This does not effect me anymore, But I am still very annoyed by it. You cannot get broadband everywhere, so those with a dial up connection(me a couple months ago) will have to connect just to install the game. They will have to go through the hassle of creating a steam account(which takes a while to do on a dial-up) just to play the single player game. By all means impliment this in the multiplayer, but the single player should not require that.
I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone complaining about the lack of a manual. I was looking forward to reading that in the bathroom at work today to hold me over until I can get home to install the game.
WWF sued WCW for using "Hulk" when Hogan switched over. Marvel then sued WWF for using "Hulk" for all those years. To the best of my knowledge WCW decided to call him Hollywood Hogan at that point and WWF dropped it's suit. When WWF dropped it's suit then Marvel dropped thiers. In that case Marvel clearly had to counter sue or WWF would have set a precidence and taken the copywright for "Hulk". Incedently the name Hulk Hogan was taken from the Incredible Hulk TV show with Lou Ferregno(sorry if I misspelled that).
Because he did not start or create the company, he just created the characters that helped it grow. Bill Gates founded MS, Stan Lee did not found Marvel. Gates also still has power at MS, even if he doesn't have his hands in everything they do. Stan Lee does not have power at marvel. It is argueable that he never really did.
You can't blame Stan Lee. He hasn't been anything more than a figurehead in a long time. To the best of my knowledge he does not work for the company in any way at the moment. Blame the company not "The Man."
Simply put, the original commenort asked for his rights back and I am pointing out that he has not lost any. The person who replied to me pointed out how he thought others had lost thiers. Regardless of the correctness of his statement, it was not an answer to the question posed. The original comment was not can these other people that are not me have thier rights back, it was can I have my rights back. I'm pretty sure it was an offhanded joke that represented how he felt, as was my comment. My comment was thus relevant to his, the reply to mine attempted to be but was slightly off subject, yours was completely irrelavent. If anyone has fed a troll, it was myself for repling to your obviously charged comment.
I have also been trying to point out that most of the people who bash the Patriot act have not read it and do not really know the facts about what they are bashing. I have issues with it too, but it is not the huge affront to civil liberties that everyone seems to think it is. MOST of the powers granted by the Patriot act were already there, just not cleanly laid out on paper. It actually created more regulations on some of them than were previously available. There are valid reasons to hate it, and there are many that have read it and still feel very strongly against it. I seriously doubt most of the posters replying to this story have though based on their comments.
Now how about a quote from the Patriot Act that takes away this right?
How about the right to know if the government has peaked at my medical records, or noticed what books I've checked out at the library? Now, I can't prove they have, but no one can prove they have not since I simply don't have the right to know. I would like that right, and I would like the right to not have to think "Anything I check out here can be used against me" while I browse for books.
If the US government wants freedom to be "on the march" shouldn't we, as an example to the nations we wish to make free, be steadfast in preserving our own rights and freedoms? While the death of 4,000 on 9/11 was of course a tragedy and measures need to be taken to make us safer, is sacrificing freedom worth it? About 40,000 people die in car accidents every year, yet we don't have a "war on cars" that I am aware of, and I'm pretty sure in every state you can drive before you are legally an adult.
Americans are still very emotional about 9/11, and will likely remain that way for years to come, just as it was with Pearl Harbor. However we can learn from history, and I tend to believe that perhaps half a century from now the PATRIOT Act will be viewed almost as negatively as the Japanese Internment after Pearl Harbor is viewed today.
You are safe in assuming that your records have not been looked at because that particular clause does require notification after use. Once again a reply getting modded insightful for just spewing retoric. Hasn't anyone here actually read the Patriot Act? It is not necessary, but it is also not nearly as bad as the media would have you beleive. Most of the abilities that are given were already there for certain other kinds of accused criminals, just not terrorists.
I agree with your second paragraph. We should be steadfast in protecting our own freedoms, we should also be informed about what we are fighting for or against. Anyone who wants to complain that the Patriot Act violates thier freedoms needs to actually read it for themselves. All the Patriot act really does is give law enforcement the tools they need to investigated suspected terrorists. Many of these tools were already available for law enforcement, but not clealy defined. For example "delay notice search warrents" existed prior to the patriot act, but not there is a set way of obtaining them. Take a look at United States vs Dalia or United States vs Freitas for examples of this being used long before there was a patriot act. These tools are nothing new and have already stood the test of Constitutionality when used in non-terrorist investigations.
If the media continues to publish the current factless propaganda on it you are probably right.
Sure I can.
My right to ask for information that is in the public domain.
I was told by the FBI agents and Federal Marshall that came to my door that while "Yes, you're completely right that the county clerks office is required to give you copies of various maps if you request and pay the copy fee, but the PATRIOT Act makes it illegal for you to ASK for them."
Now, last time I checked, that was a violation of Free Speech. To say I can't ASK for something is the wrong way to go about things if you're worried about the "wrong" people to get this kind of information. (Maps of zoning, municipal buildings, etc)
The reason I got maps at the County office: I was recreating my home town in SimCity2000.
There is nothing in the Patriot Act that says that you could not ask for maps. If someone has denied you maps based on the Patriot Act then they themselves have not read it. I doubt the truth in your example, but if it did happen to you, you were either talking to someone with no understanding of his job, or you were lied to plain and simple. This is not the Patriot Act effecting you, it is an employee not understanding thier job effecting you.
Right to counsel. Right to trial. Right to confront witnesses against me. Protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Protection against unwarranted searches.
How that got modded insightful I will never know. Again I asked what rights YOU have lost. I'm better you personally have not been affected at all by anything Ashcroft has done. As for the unwarranted searches, they still have to have approval by a judge before they can do any kind o search. It may not be an actual warrant, but they still have to show a cause before any judge would approve it. Try reading the Patriot Act before just throwing out the standard propaganda against it.
Right to confront witnesses against you? Since when has that been a right? I don't see that in the Bill of rights anywhere.
Face it you have not been effected one bit by anything Ashcroft has done.
AWESOME.
So, can I have my rights back, now?
Sure, if you can name one right that has been taken away from YOU.
There has been an overwhelming call on the City of Heroes forums for the Superstrength Powerset to be added to scrappers or for a new powerset to be created that would allow similar looking attacks. Has this been considered by the developers or are there any other plans in the work to grant the overwhelming request to "punch the bejeezus out of things"?
I realize that there are balance concerns, but most of the posters are simply asking for a non-skilled punch based powerset. Essentially it is a visual issue more than anything else that is preventing players from playing the type of character that they truely want to.
I tend to think that the previous events have just been tests for something big when they release City of Villians.
I took part in the test of the halloween thing on the test Sever Tuesday, and it was certainly fun. You don't know when you click on a door if you are going to get a treat(insp, enhancement, temp power, etc) or a trick(Zombie, ghost, witch, etc attacking you). They said that it was only a small part of the event, but that alone was far more fun then I had anticipated. I for one can't wait until this weekend to see what they have cooked up.
That is true. I have read up on some Green Party candidates that I do like. It is just Nader that I find to be a loon.
I mentioned some other parties in my post as well. We have two Parties in power though. Most of the other parties are mirror copies of the ones in power. I see very little difference between the Green Party and the Democrats for example. The Libertarians are considerably different, but I have my issues with them as well. I am an independant voter that has no desire to join any party. Adding more parties though does not fix the problem, it just spreads it between more groups.
The TWO party system is quite possibly the worst thing that could have ever happened to the US political system. This was not what the founding fathers intended and though they were not perfect and did make mistakes on this issue they were correct. George Washington on his way out noticed the formation of political parties and stated that it was the worst thing that could happen to the country. I agree. Both parties at the moment are mirror images of each other. Their values and possitions on some issues are different, but they behave in the same manor. I for one am tired of voting for the lesser of evils and as long as we have a two party system that is what a majority of Americans will have to do. The independant, Libertarian, or green party candidates would get my vote but most of them are no better and would just create another mirror of the current parties.
You are correct. States do decide how their votes go, but most (if not all) states have laws that regulate how the electorate must vote. Currently, all but two states operate in a "Winner takes all" manner. Maine and Nebraska being the exceptions.
Glad to see my memory hasn't failed me. That being the case if we want the votes to be splitable(which I do atleast) we should start at the state level instead of the federal.
This is a "Mom and apple pie" question. No candidate will say they're for animal abuse, yet I don't see any president actually doing anything about it.
I'm not sure that they should either. This seems like a state or city issue to me. The higher and more seperated you get from the problem the less effective you will be in solving it. I think the penalties for animal abuse are rediculously low, but I don't want Congress dealing with the issue, I want the state dealing with it.
There are thousands of deaths annually in the U.S. that are attributable to alcohol overdose. In addition, alcohol intoxication is associated with violent behavior. Yet alcohol remains widely available. Another common drug, marijuana, cannot kill by overdose, and does not cause violent behavior. In light of these facts, how will your administration rationalize the continued prohibition of marijuana, which is a less harmful drug?
Both drugs destroy people's lives, both drugs can lead to further illegal activity, and both drugs have long term negative effects on the human body. So what is the difference between the two? One leads to worse drugs and the other does not. I'm sure I will feel the spewing of vial hate because I don't support legalizing marijuana, but it is a gateway drug. You can scream about how it isn't and throw your reports at me all day, it will not do any good. I could easily throw reports that support my point of view right back at you. The bottom line for me is what I have seen first hand. I have seen strict anti-drug people start using marijuana because they became convinced it wasn't a real drug and then step by step work thier way up to much harder drugs. I have also seen the effects that it takes on middle aged individuals who spend thier whole lives doing it. The mind is not fully there any more, and self control is a thing of the past. I would support outlawing alcohol as well if i wasn't for the fact that we have seen it doesn't work. Outlawing alcohol just leads to organized crime, outlawing pot just leads to people growing it in thier basement.
Excellant post. If I had mod powers I'd mod it up as insightful in a second.
I think perhaps a polite answer would be "you need to read up on the separation of powers and why the system is setup that way. The judges are given life apointments so that they can concentrate on upholding the law and constitution, not making people happy."
That is the problem, I have read up on the separation of powers and the courts currently are too powerful. Thier original power was to interpret the laws. Determining the Constitutionality of them was a power the Supreme Court took for itself after the fact. The problem is that judges are using thier personal views and not a logical view of the laws to base thier decisions. What is the point in Congress passing a law that the majority wants(like the no call lists) when a single non-elected judge can just throw it out? It is much easier to have a judge make the laws then getting them pushed through Congress so that is what is happening lately.
As for the comment before about this not being an issue. It is not an issue if you agree with this crusade. Claiming that the only people that care about this issue are the priviledged and the Rublican is down right offensive. I am and always have been a dirt poor Independant. Both Republican and Demacrats make me sick and I feel that political parties are the worst thing that has ever happened to our political system. Everyone is screaming that only the rich benefitted from the tax cuts, well if that is the case how come all the rich people(ie Hollywood, Gates, etc) are Kerry supporters? If you do a tax cut based on percentages it only makes sense that the people that have paid the most in are also the ones that will get the most back. The rich pay a far greater percentage than the rest of us as a penality for being successful.
isn't worried about paying for college
Wrong again. I will be in debt until I'm 40 paying on student loans. I didn't qualify for a single grant because I'm a white male. How is that system fair when the majority is penalized for being the majority. Grants should be based on need and not race. Race should not factor in at all.