Well, I can't say you surprised me with that posting. I've come to expect this sort of post these days.
If slashdotters like you were to be believed, by now Linux would have 96% of the desktop market, and Intel would be a burger stand somewhere out in the mojave desert. Intel aren't scared of AMD, and Linux isn't going to storm the desktop this year. Or next. Or the year after.
Of course, I'm sure some insightful moderator will stick his oar in and mod me down instead of discussing this point, but again - that's expected. After all, why let objectivity get in the way?
Then you have to worry about the accuracy of the machine-readers, which will mechanically read the papertrail. If someone corrupted that, you're still screwed. That's the problem - even though it's machine-readable and human-readable, the counting is done by closed code, which is most definitely not human-readable.
What happened to "put the tick in the box next to your candidate"? It scales REALLY well, doesn't cost millions, and can give you an accurate count within hours. And, recounts are more than possible.:)
"You, on the other hand, can move to any number of countries that don't bother with that whole 'democracy thing'"
Or, he could move to one of the many countries that does it better. Don't think the US is the last bastion of democracy. It wasn't the first, and it sure won't be the last. America is nothing special.
No-one has ever died from weed. Ever. It's not physically possible. The same can't be said for guns. The advert is saying "oh - this lethal thing is fine, but the harmless thing they have is not fine, and is naughty". It doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny. It's pathetic.
You're not dumb:) you've proved that much. The difference is that sponsorship implies a long-term agreement. That, to the person being sponsored, is a regular cash income. Because of the fact it's regular, the person being paid doesn't want to rock the boat, and so tries to be as nice to the sponsor as possible. If they piss off a sponsor, they don't return, and other potential sponsors think "hey - they screwed over their last sponsor, so it's not for us." Just like that, the revenue stream is lost.
Of course it doesn't always have to be like that, but the fact of an arrangement between the two entities means it could happen. And seeing as this is a government, the conflict of interests is very important. If they got sponsored by Nike, what would stop them giving Nike special treatment? Nothing. That's the problem.
Governments don't get donations from private entities (parties do, which, again, is horrible). Either way, there's a difference between donations and sponsorship. Sponsorship implies a two-way relationship above the advertising. It's a revenue stream, and as such is valuable to the recipient. Due to that, it's a massive conflict of interest, seeing as the government is responsible (supposedly) to the people and ONLY the people.
It seems harmless when you're talking about the local deli, but if it was a large multinational, they've effectively bought the government.
We're talking about a company giving money to a branch of the government that can actually make decisions regarding law. That means the government has to be nice to their sponsor, or they lose their money. Surely those facts alone spells danger to you. I'm no alarmist, but that's frowned upon in, oh, the rest of the world. The government is for the people, not companies.
People on/. cry blue murder when MS gives schools free software, yet don't raise a finger in protest when a local government is openly accepting direct funds from a company entity. Double standards? On slashdot? Never!:-P
Are the busses in the Judicial, Legislative or Executive branches again? I forget...
It doesn't take a genius to realise this is buying government. In the rest of the world, that's called corruption, and a horrific conflict of interest. The government is indebted to the sponsors. If they piss off the sponsors, they aren't going to get their funding. Can't you see how potentially bad that could be??
No, but it implies a responsibility to the sponsors. When you're discussing government, that's ridiculous. They are supposed to represent you, imparially. Not some corporate entity.
That's the conflict of interest that can't be allowed to even be a factor in government. Just having the doubt that it could affect their allegience means something is horribly wrong.
And yes, of course it's a bloody co-incidence. What is this, kindergarten? sheesh.
But then that fire department would be indebted to Nike... If a fire broke out in an orphanage and a Nike warehouse, they'd have to go to the Nike warehouse first to save their sponsorship. True, it might never come to that, but the conflict of interest is huge, and should sound alarm bells to anyone even remotely caring about this.
Your example is slightly flawed, as it can make any money-raising activity sound like a great idea. Why not just have the mafia dropping off sacks of money every couple of weeks? That would keep them in hoses for a while...
The Mafia could also pay, but then the government would be responsible to them. That's the issue. It's not that they're being paid, but it's the fact they're being paid by a company. A private entity. That means they are in their pocket. They have a responsibility to their sponsors. Even if the responsibility is 0, it's still a conflict of interest, and something you should be very worried about indeed. They're public servants, not corporate servants. sheesh.
Why is IT support going to be horrible? It's an XP box, so it can be fixed remotely, should anything go wrong. Is this another ridiculous jibe at microsoft?:)
Laws need to be updated so they specifically state what is illegal and what isn't. Normal people can understand that watching a DVD while driving is reckless, but not everyone thinks that way. Just like you think that everyone running around with a gun is a great idea, lots more people think it's ridiculously dangerous and unfair on everyone else. Because not everyone thinks the same, these grey areas need clearing up.
That bad parenting didn't kill them, a gun with a bullet killed them. If they were just sitting there going "bang! bang!" that advert wouldn't have run. It's not brain surgery. sheesh. no-one needs a freakin' gun anyway. No "injuns" are gonna ride in and start scalping people, and I'm pretty sure King George isn't hiding off the east coast waiting for everyone to look the other way...
It has a scientific base. We can watch mutations in DNA over one generation. That is evidence supporting it. Creationism has NO evidence supporting it, only evidence countering it. If we're arguing which has more scientific plausibility, evolution won the moment it was thought up. Only Christians will say evolution has gaping holes in it or is rubbish. Scientists won't.
stoners never insist on using a misinterpreted 200-year-old anachronistic document to insist on carrying a lethal weapon with them, 24/7. You can start using logic any time you want, now...:-P
You've missed the entire point of affirmative action. I'm not for it either, but not because it's "unfair to white people". I'm against it, as there is a huge inbalance between black candidates for universities and white. That is because of most black people being poor, with no way out. Affirmative action is a cheap stop-gap measure to fix the statistics, instead of actually fixing the problem at its cause. Black people in the US are more likely to be born in poverty than white people. When you're born into poverty, it's very hard to get out. The lacking public schools mean an education can't help you, as you won't get one. How are you supposed to get into college and get a good job if you can't even get a basic school education? You can't. Of course, the right would have you label these black people "lazy" and say they love living off welfare, being poor. Lies. People are people, and until people see that, it's not going to change.
Hate crimes are perpetrated (most often) by the majority onto the minority. As in most places in the US white people are the majority, you'd expect on purely statistical terms a much larger percentage of hate crimes committed by white people. It's not a legal scheme or plot, but maths.
Spouting the right-wing off-the-shelf arguments shows your point to be lacking:)
The PATRIOT act has done NOTHING for the security of America, Americans or anyone. It's given the feds powers they don't need to fight terrorism. It's helping to fight terrorism as much as arming the mafia would.
There's mountains of evidence to support this, and absolutely none to support it making the US any safer. You want a safe country? Get your troops out of Saudi Arabia and other muslim countries. Treat other nations as what they are: SOVEREIGN. All that nonsense about making the US safer was irrelevent. It was an emotive ploy designed to sucker in as many Americans as possible. Didn't you stop to think about its stupid name? If the act was so damned good, they could have just given it a number. Since its enactment, it has been used against normal, every-day American citizens (and others), to enforce an agenda far-removed from national security. Thanks to Osama Bin Laden, the US now has a "I respect your first ammendment rights, but not now" card, which they can play and immediately get everyone to shut up or be labelled Unamerican. Is that free? Is that democracy? Hardly. Every single American is being taken on a ride, and the all-encompassing American patriotism is blinding them. Wake up, people - America is just another country, and it risks becoming a dangerous country for its inhabitants, and hated around the world. If it's such a great place, why is that happening?
Vote kerry, bush, that libertarian whacko, anyone. It doesn't matter. They're all professional politicians (no matter what they say). The PATRIOT act is going to take a lot more than a change of government figurehead to be removed.
The anti-drugs adverts are the most ridiculous things I think I've ever seen on TV. Two kids, smoking the reefer in dad's office, find a gun and *pow*. dead kid. The message? Don't smoke pot. Never mind the fact the kid's dad had a GUN. It was the gun that killed the kid, not the reefer.
Anyway, the US government complaining about money going to terrorist organisations should take a look in the mirror first. Not to mention the $1bn a year to Israel (technically a terrorist state, due to their complete disrespect for international law), but all the money coming from Boston for the IRA, etc. They just pick'n'choose who are the bad guys when it suits their agenda, not when it suits the public. Fuckers.
His story does sound rather Sal Wise-Esque... If he's genuinely in the right about everything, then I support him whole-heartedly. If not, well, best of luck.
Slashdot Mirror
And were called "Padded cells" by those who travelled on them. Great name, huh? :)
If slashdotters like you were to be believed, by now Linux would have 96% of the desktop market, and Intel would be a burger stand somewhere out in the mojave desert. Intel aren't scared of AMD, and Linux isn't going to storm the desktop this year. Or next. Or the year after.
Of course, I'm sure some insightful moderator will stick his oar in and mod me down instead of discussing this point, but again - that's expected. After all, why let objectivity get in the way?
What happened to "put the tick in the box next to your candidate"? It scales REALLY well, doesn't cost millions, and can give you an accurate count within hours. And, recounts are more than possible. :)
Or, he could move to one of the many countries that does it better. Don't think the US is the last bastion of democracy. It wasn't the first, and it sure won't be the last. America is nothing special.
No-one has ever died from weed. Ever. It's not physically possible. The same can't be said for guns. The advert is saying "oh - this lethal thing is fine, but the harmless thing they have is not fine, and is naughty". It doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny. It's pathetic.
Of course it doesn't always have to be like that, but the fact of an arrangement between the two entities means it could happen. And seeing as this is a government, the conflict of interests is very important. If they got sponsored by Nike, what would stop them giving Nike special treatment? Nothing. That's the problem.
Governments don't get donations from private entities (parties do, which, again, is horrible). Either way, there's a difference between donations and sponsorship. Sponsorship implies a two-way relationship above the advertising. It's a revenue stream, and as such is valuable to the recipient. Due to that, it's a massive conflict of interest, seeing as the government is responsible (supposedly) to the people and ONLY the people.
It seems harmless when you're talking about the local deli, but if it was a large multinational, they've effectively bought the government.
People on /. cry blue murder when MS gives schools free software, yet don't raise a finger in protest when a local government is openly accepting direct funds from a company entity. Double standards? On slashdot? Never! :-P
It doesn't take a genius to realise this is buying government. In the rest of the world, that's called corruption, and a horrific conflict of interest. The government is indebted to the sponsors. If they piss off the sponsors, they aren't going to get their funding. Can't you see how potentially bad that could be??
No, but it implies a responsibility to the sponsors. When you're discussing government, that's ridiculous. They are supposed to represent you, imparially. Not some corporate entity.
And yes, of course it's a bloody co-incidence. What is this, kindergarten? sheesh.
Your example is slightly flawed, as it can make any money-raising activity sound like a great idea. Why not just have the mafia dropping off sacks of money every couple of weeks? That would keep them in hoses for a while...
If that's really "better", than, well, sheesh. vote bush - he sounds like your sort.
The Mafia could also pay, but then the government would be responsible to them. That's the issue. It's not that they're being paid, but it's the fact they're being paid by a company. A private entity. That means they are in their pocket. They have a responsibility to their sponsors. Even if the responsibility is 0, it's still a conflict of interest, and something you should be very worried about indeed. They're public servants, not corporate servants. sheesh.
Why is IT support going to be horrible? It's an XP box, so it can be fixed remotely, should anything go wrong. Is this another ridiculous jibe at microsoft? :)
Laws need to be updated so they specifically state what is illegal and what isn't. Normal people can understand that watching a DVD while driving is reckless, but not everyone thinks that way. Just like you think that everyone running around with a gun is a great idea, lots more people think it's ridiculously dangerous and unfair on everyone else. Because not everyone thinks the same, these grey areas need clearing up.
That bad parenting didn't kill them, a gun with a bullet killed them. If they were just sitting there going "bang! bang!" that advert wouldn't have run. It's not brain surgery. sheesh. no-one needs a freakin' gun anyway. No "injuns" are gonna ride in and start scalping people, and I'm pretty sure King George isn't hiding off the east coast waiting for everyone to look the other way...
It has a scientific base. We can watch mutations in DNA over one generation. That is evidence supporting it. Creationism has NO evidence supporting it, only evidence countering it. If we're arguing which has more scientific plausibility, evolution won the moment it was thought up. Only Christians will say evolution has gaping holes in it or is rubbish. Scientists won't.
stoners never insist on using a misinterpreted 200-year-old anachronistic document to insist on carrying a lethal weapon with them, 24/7. You can start using logic any time you want, now... :-P
Well, if there wasn't a gun there, the kid would be still alive. You don't exactly need a gun in your office. It's not the 1800s any more. sheesh.
Hate crimes are perpetrated (most often) by the majority onto the minority. As in most places in the US white people are the majority, you'd expect on purely statistical terms a much larger percentage of hate crimes committed by white people. It's not a legal scheme or plot, but maths.
Spouting the right-wing off-the-shelf arguments shows your point to be lacking :)
There's mountains of evidence to support this, and absolutely none to support it making the US any safer. You want a safe country? Get your troops out of Saudi Arabia and other muslim countries. Treat other nations as what they are: SOVEREIGN. All that nonsense about making the US safer was irrelevent. It was an emotive ploy designed to sucker in as many Americans as possible. Didn't you stop to think about its stupid name? If the act was so damned good, they could have just given it a number. Since its enactment, it has been used against normal, every-day American citizens (and others), to enforce an agenda far-removed from national security. Thanks to Osama Bin Laden, the US now has a "I respect your first ammendment rights, but not now" card, which they can play and immediately get everyone to shut up or be labelled Unamerican. Is that free? Is that democracy? Hardly. Every single American is being taken on a ride, and the all-encompassing American patriotism is blinding them. Wake up, people - America is just another country, and it risks becoming a dangerous country for its inhabitants, and hated around the world. If it's such a great place, why is that happening?
Vote kerry, bush, that libertarian whacko, anyone. It doesn't matter. They're all professional politicians (no matter what they say). The PATRIOT act is going to take a lot more than a change of government figurehead to be removed.
Posting with a name like "glock" is kinda giving an NRA-lovin' feel to your party, which is somewhat scary. thanks, though ;)
Anyway, the US government complaining about money going to terrorist organisations should take a look in the mirror first. Not to mention the $1bn a year to Israel (technically a terrorist state, due to their complete disrespect for international law), but all the money coming from Boston for the IRA, etc. They just pick'n'choose who are the bad guys when it suits their agenda, not when it suits the public. Fuckers.
His story does sound rather Sal Wise-Esque... If he's genuinely in the right about everything, then I support him whole-heartedly. If not, well, best of luck.