My home system dual-boots 'tween Win2K and SuSE Linux. Both halves are rather stable, and sufficiently familiar as to be quite usable. However, they have different uses...
The SuSE side gets used for programming, CD writing (mkisofs + cdrecord), browsing, writing (Emacs + LaTeX, since if I'm writing it's probably for a technical paper), and certain games (notably _Dominions_ -- the windows version interacts badly with my video driver).
The Windows side gets used for photo manipulation (first some Minolta software to change color spaces, then PSP, which I find far more useful than the Gimp *shrug*), some browsing (for sites that work better in IE than in Konqueror), and certain games (such as CM:BB). I've also used Excel to create far more presentable graphs than what Gnuplot provides, and Powerpoint for presentations.
At least until I started some/very/ aggressive filtering, in excess of 90% of the (upwards of 15/day... my e-mail address has been public for some 8.5 years straight) spam I got was in Korean, sent from Korean servers, advertising for Korean servers. Much of the rest was in Chinese, relayed from either Chinese or Taiwanese servers advertising Chinese or Taiwanese URLs. For what it's worth, I don't read either language. Oh, and there's also an Austrian porn magazine that kept sending me messages in German, and I've gotten the occasional Spanish spam from Argentina, Mexico or Spain.
I used to get/very/ little spam that's actually in English, and that's mostly Nigerian bank scams. Of course, now practically all the spam (most of it now bounces, so it's far less) that gets through to me is in English, since I do a lot of filtering aimed specifically at Korean and other non-English e-mail. I filter on Received: lines, Subjects:, From:, X-Mailer:...
...both have rather different economic and political philosophies.
Republicans, for instance, are more likely to believe in equality of opportunity -- but if you fail, whether it's your fault or not, are less likely to help. This ranges from a preference for race-neutral laws to a dislike for wealth distribution on the basis that "the poor deserve more"... they are also more likely to have a religious bent, as some 30% of the party labels itself as "religious and conservative".
Democrats are more likely to pursue "social justice" on the belief that there should be equality of outcome -- in other words, redistribution of wealth even if it takes place without consent of the giver (e.g. Nozick would probably be horrified... but completely unsurprised). They are more likely to take an optimistic view of domestic policies (ignoring the fraud and not examining what actually works or not) and foreign policies (especially, trusting that other leaders "mean well" e.g. treating Arafat as a leader who seriously wants peace). Democrats also end up owing vast favors to labor and farmers.
Ralph Nader is a jackass who knows better, but chose to lie.
Compare against the pool of applicants, not the general population. Those that don't apply, or don't even come close to the qualifications, don't normally get in...
Hm. There was a short-lived charge by the Congressional Republicans (during the "Republican Revolution" early in Clinton's first term) to dismantle the US Department of Education and a few others.
It didn't last very long, however -- you can imagine how it played out politically, even if you don't remember it. "The Republicans don't want your children learning", et al. As long as the voters (a) didn't realize that most educational funding doesn't come from the Federal level, anyway and (b) that the US Constitution/may/ not support having a DoEducation (because the states may be able to handle it reasonably well), the propaganda worked. It still would, which is why Bush wanted to call himself "The Education President".
No. The Senate is 49D-49R-2; the other independent is Jim Jeffords (I-VT). However, once the special election in Missouri is certified (replacing a D with an R, immediately), it'll shift to 48D-50R-2.
Count the number of SEC actions recently -- even while it was chaired by the embattled and now disgraced Harvey Pitt. The SEC has been/far/ more active in investigating and pursuing both companies and individuals than it ever was under Clinton.
I would actually agree with Daschle -- or, more precisely, judging from what Bush has pushed for it should have been more decisive. Somehow, with a razor-thin mandate (i.e. winning a statistical toss-up because we can't have two Presidents, and the Constitution wouldn't allow, say, Bush and Gore each taking two years of the term), he's managed to push a pretty conservative agenda (esp. pro-religion) without getting too badly nailed (except wrt the Farm Bill { too electorally popular to oppose } and the steel tarriffs { political miscalculation to get the votes of PA and WV }). If the Democrats were being the loyal opposition, it would have been divisive. Until 11-September, it actually often was, if memory serves (recall the debates on cloning, SocSec privatization, and stem-cell research, for instance).
Clinton, actually, moved substantially towards the center after the Democrats lost seats in the first mid-term election -- he had to, because the Republican-controlled Congress didn't give in.
Absolutely -- not that they had much of a spine beforehand, considering how they pandered to farms (both sides did, of course), the religious (both sides... Congress just voted overwhelmingly to reaffirm declarations of "under God" et al), to Bill Clinton when he was turning his back on the traditional Democratic core (e.g. unions re NAFTA), et al. Go read yesterday's newspapers; Democratic leaders have publically acknowledged that their stance appeared to have hurt them in the election, and that going along with Bush on this issue would be better politically.
This is the same reason why they're planning to finally grant votes to (and confirm) two of Bush's nominations for Federal judgeships -- because they think that their "none shall pass" stance hurt them at the polls. It doesn't matter if they stand for their principles, if as a result they lose all power...
Re:The supreme court interprets the constitution..
on
HomeSec In the News
·
· Score: 2
Go look up with SCOTUS members supported Congress's "Gun-Free School Zones" and "Violence against Women" acts, both of which completely ignored the Constitutional limits on Federal power in their attempt to make the 'commerce clause' apply to EVERY possible situation. Hint: It wasn't the conservative triad.
The Founders explicitly did/not/ want democracy. That's why they wrote up a democratic republic -- so its idiocies would be restrained.
Re:The solution to problems like this...
on
HomeSec In the News
·
· Score: 2
That, and the voters would have to be willing to support the president and punish the lawmakers.
When pork goes out to a WIDE area and a very politically powerful, utterly self-centered lobby e.g. this year's farm bill, Presidents have little choice but to go along if they want to keep their jobs.
It seems that in Hollywood, every movie shares the same objective as "Springtime For Hitler"...
Heh. One of Mario Puzo's books -- maybe it was "The Last Don", as it involved Cross -- at one point went a bit into how one/never/ should settle for "net points" when dealing with the Hollywood folks. Of course, since the writer who got shafted had connections with Puzo's more unsavory characters, he didn't stay screwed for long, if memory serves. This "no movie ever makes a profit" scam has probably been in place for many years...
Please inject yourself with a bubonic plague virus, and lock yourself in a room for a week with nothing but a book on epidemology. Have fun curing yourself with nothing but knowledge.
Gates's foundation, on the other hand, contributes solutions instead of saying "Here's some code, and if you don't like what it does, you can rewrite it yourself and even give it away."
There's a difference between/holding/ power and/exercising/ it. The public has substantially more power than they normally exercise, because it's been a long time since they've been driven to the point of rebellion.
1- Iraq is not being bombed for oil, regardless of whatever lies Chomsky and Ralls have been spewing out these days. Really, the way to get cheap oil would be to let Israel die so that the Arabs would back us... but we're not doing that.
Iraq DOES put itself in danger by consistently violating the terms of the peace treaty.
Oh, and the US does encourage democracy in the Middle East, e.g. via rapproachment in Iran and criticizing the Egyptians for cracking down on critics. However, it's not going to happen unless (a) the Arabs revolt and wipe out their governments, (b) an Arab government becomes altruistic and suicides itself Gorbachev-style, or (c) somebody invades, wipes out the government, and prepares the ground for a new one. Hereditary dictators don't normally switch over to democracy just because you asked them to. It may be in their PEOPLE's interest, but it's not in the DICTATOR's interest.
2-
Tried. Go find and read the Green Book. It doesn't work too well in conflict zones or dictatorships where aid has a habit of been redirected to somebody's coffers.
3- The Chinese people, with their history of being dominated by foreigners, might resent external involvement. They have to find democracy by themselves, and it's going to take a while for roughly 1.6B that have/never/ experienced democracy for the last few thousand years. Sooner or later, they may begin to value rights over maximum stability, but it might take a while.
As for Russia, Russia can FUBAR the US's foreign policy repeatedly through its UN/SC veto (which the American and European left will insist that we adhere to, of course). I suspect that there's a tacit deal -- the US overlooks Chechnya, and the Russians play ball on Iraq and the War on Terrorism. The EU can better afford to criticize Russia, as it's less likely to do something requiring Russian backing.
4- The Iraqi's aren't screwed both ways; it's not like they're mindless children dependent on the Baath party maintaining power. Once, in fact, they were among the most educated, wealthiest Arab countries around... and with a little assistance and removal of certain leaders, they could again be in that position.
As for all the paper, none of the treaties that the UN demands are worth a dime if they're ignored with no consequences... and refusing to SIGN a treaty is very different from refusing to IMPLEMENT a signed treaty. One is staying away, and the other is breaking one's word. The US never agreed to SIGN all treaties put before it, whereas Iraq AGREED to disarm.
Oh, and the US does NOT have the power to lift up the world; generally, people seem to have too high expectations of its power, like the Arabs who believe that Bush could call Sharon and suddenly there'd be a peace deal, ergo the US is to blame for not doing so. Not so. The US has SOME power, but it does not control other states; it has some economic and military leverage, but even that only goes so far. In many cases, regional problems demand regional solutions. The US can feed people, but first the people who don't want them to be fed must be dealt with. The US can encourage democracy through diplomacy, but we can only rarely impose it (e.g. Afghanistan, and even that brought protests. Incidentally, US SpecOps people were sometimes asked by locals to be their mayors / other officials, heh. Not their role; the locals need to learn to rule themselves.) The US can -- sometimes -- deal with a dictator, but the locals need to cooperate to resolve what happens afterwards...
Um, no. Bush's domestic agenda has gone nowhere -- even the Homeland Security mess is delayed due to a fight over union/work rules. His desired judges haven't been getting hearings, his SEC head just had to step down, his tax cuts may NOT be made permanent despite his desire to do so, his TIPS program was squashed due to public protest,/his/ drug plan is deadlocked with the Dem's drug plan, his "private investment account" idea for Social Security is deader than Abel...
Well, there's not just envy, but also severe doctrinal differences. None of the 11-Sep hijackers were exactly poor, if memory serves, and quite a few if not all received higher education in the western world.
However, the US isn't an Islamic theocracy, nor is it terribly friendly to terrorists, and they didn't exactly appreciate that.
Britain and France didn't give much of a damn, either, for the longest time. Read up on Hitler's fears on what would have happened if France had intervened early, when Germany began blatantly violating treaties, instead of waiting to be occupied.
Bullshit. Name some names of people who've burned flags without violating other ordinances like disorderly conduct, arson or trespassing, and have been arrested for it.
Slashdot Mirror
My home system dual-boots 'tween Win2K and SuSE Linux. Both halves are rather stable, and sufficiently familiar as to be quite usable. However, they have different uses...
The SuSE side gets used for programming, CD writing (mkisofs + cdrecord), browsing, writing (Emacs + LaTeX, since if I'm writing it's probably for a technical paper), and certain games (notably _Dominions_ -- the windows version interacts badly with my video driver).
The Windows side gets used for photo manipulation (first some Minolta software to change color spaces, then PSP, which I find far more useful than the Gimp *shrug*), some browsing (for sites that work better in IE than in Konqueror), and certain games (such as CM:BB). I've also used Excel to create far more presentable graphs than what Gnuplot provides, and Powerpoint for presentations.
At least until I started some /very/ aggressive filtering, in excess of 90% of the (upwards of 15/day... my e-mail address has been public for some 8.5 years straight) spam I got was in Korean, sent from Korean servers, advertising for Korean servers. Much of the rest was in Chinese, relayed from either Chinese or Taiwanese servers advertising Chinese or Taiwanese URLs. For what it's worth, I don't read either language. Oh, and there's also an Austrian porn magazine that kept sending me messages in German, and I've gotten the occasional Spanish spam from Argentina, Mexico or Spain.
/very/ little spam that's actually in English, and that's mostly Nigerian bank scams. Of course, now practically all the spam (most of it now bounces, so it's far less) that gets through to me is in English, since I do a lot of filtering aimed specifically at Korean and other non-English e-mail. I filter on Received: lines, Subjects:, From:, X-Mailer: ...
I used to get
...both have rather different economic and political philosophies.
Republicans, for instance, are more likely to believe in equality of opportunity -- but if you fail, whether it's your fault or not, are less likely to help. This ranges from a preference for race-neutral laws to a dislike for wealth distribution on the basis that "the poor deserve more"... they are also more likely to have a religious bent, as some 30% of the party labels itself as "religious and conservative".
Democrats are more likely to pursue "social justice" on the belief that there should be equality of outcome -- in other words, redistribution of wealth even if it takes place without consent of the giver (e.g. Nozick would probably be horrified... but completely unsurprised). They are more likely to take an optimistic view of domestic policies (ignoring the fraud and not examining what actually works or not) and foreign policies (especially, trusting that other leaders "mean well" e.g. treating Arafat as a leader who seriously wants peace). Democrats also end up owing vast favors to labor and farmers.
Ralph Nader is a jackass who knows better, but chose to lie.
Compare against the pool of applicants, not the general population. Those that don't apply, or don't even come close to the qualifications, don't normally get in...
Hm. There was a short-lived charge by the Congressional Republicans (during the "Republican Revolution" early in Clinton's first term) to dismantle the US Department of Education and a few others.
/may/ not support having a DoEducation (because the states may be able to handle it reasonably well), the propaganda worked. It still would, which is why Bush wanted to call himself "The Education President".
It didn't last very long, however -- you can imagine how it played out politically, even if you don't remember it. "The Republicans don't want your children learning", et al. As long as the voters (a) didn't realize that most educational funding doesn't come from the Federal level, anyway and (b) that the US Constitution
...except that no such single continuous governmental system has existed.
No. The Senate is 49D-49R-2; the other independent is Jim Jeffords (I-VT). However, once the special election in Missouri is certified (replacing a D with an R, immediately), it'll shift to 48D-50R-2.
Count the number of SEC actions recently -- even while it was chaired by the embattled and now disgraced Harvey Pitt. The SEC has been /far/ more active in investigating and pursuing both companies and individuals than it ever was under Clinton.
I would actually agree with Daschle -- or, more precisely, judging from what Bush has pushed for it should have been more decisive. Somehow, with a razor-thin mandate (i.e. winning a statistical toss-up because we can't have two Presidents, and the Constitution wouldn't allow, say, Bush and Gore each taking two years of the term), he's managed to push a pretty conservative agenda (esp. pro-religion) without getting too badly nailed (except wrt the Farm Bill { too electorally popular to oppose } and the steel tarriffs { political miscalculation to get the votes of PA and WV }). If the Democrats were being the loyal opposition, it would have been divisive. Until 11-September, it actually often was, if memory serves (recall the debates on cloning, SocSec privatization, and stem-cell research, for instance).
Clinton, actually, moved substantially towards the center after the Democrats lost seats in the first mid-term election -- he had to, because the Republican-controlled Congress didn't give in.
Absolutely -- not that they had much of a spine beforehand, considering how they pandered to farms (both sides did, of course), the religious (both sides... Congress just voted overwhelmingly to reaffirm declarations of "under God" et al), to Bill Clinton when he was turning his back on the traditional Democratic core (e.g. unions re NAFTA), et al. Go read yesterday's newspapers; Democratic leaders have publically acknowledged that their stance appeared to have hurt them in the election, and that going along with Bush on this issue would be better politically.
This is the same reason why they're planning to finally grant votes to (and confirm) two of Bush's nominations for Federal judgeships -- because they think that their "none shall pass" stance hurt them at the polls. It doesn't matter if they stand for their principles, if as a result they lose all power...
Go look up with SCOTUS members supported Congress's "Gun-Free School Zones" and "Violence against Women" acts, both of which completely ignored the Constitutional limits on Federal power in their attempt to make the 'commerce clause' apply to EVERY possible situation. Hint: It wasn't the conservative triad.
The Founders explicitly did /not/ want democracy. That's why they wrote up a democratic republic -- so its idiocies would be restrained.
That, and the voters would have to be willing to support the president and punish the lawmakers.
When pork goes out to a WIDE area and a very politically powerful, utterly self-centered lobby e.g. this year's farm bill, Presidents have little choice but to go along if they want to keep their jobs.
It seems that in Hollywood, every movie shares the same objective as "Springtime For Hitler"...
/never/ should settle for "net points" when dealing with the Hollywood folks. Of course, since the writer who got shafted had connections with Puzo's more unsavory characters, he didn't stay screwed for long, if memory serves. This "no movie ever makes a profit" scam has probably been in place for many years...
Heh. One of Mario Puzo's books -- maybe it was "The Last Don", as it involved Cross -- at one point went a bit into how one
It doesn't make the charitable gift wrong, which is what the entire discussion is about.
Knowledge is useless without tools.
Please inject yourself with a bubonic plague virus, and lock yourself in a room for a week with nothing but a book on epidemology. Have fun curing yourself with nothing but knowledge.
Gates's foundation, on the other hand, contributes solutions instead of saying "Here's some code, and if you don't like what it does, you can rewrite it yourself and even give it away."
Their lifetime might be pretty damn short if they catch nasty diseases -- which "free software" doesn't do anything to prevent.
/far/ more important right now.
Hmmm... health care such as vaccinations and AIDS treatment, or free software. I think the former is
"Got any openings I could fill?"
-- the prostitutes in New Reno, in _Fallout 2_.
(Yes, these were supposedly _female_ prostitutes... *shrug*)
There's a difference between /holding/ power and /exercising/ it. The public has substantially more power than they normally exercise, because it's been a long time since they've been driven to the point of rebellion.
1-
/never/ experienced democracy for the last few thousand years. Sooner or later, they may begin to value rights over maximum stability, but it might take a while.
Iraq is not being bombed for oil, regardless of whatever lies Chomsky and Ralls have been spewing out these days. Really, the way to get cheap oil would be to let Israel die so that the Arabs would back us... but we're not doing that.
Iraq DOES put itself in danger by consistently violating the terms of the peace treaty.
Oh, and the US does encourage democracy in the Middle East, e.g. via rapproachment in Iran and criticizing the Egyptians for cracking down on critics. However, it's not going to happen unless (a) the Arabs revolt and wipe out their governments, (b) an Arab government becomes altruistic and suicides itself Gorbachev-style, or (c) somebody invades, wipes out the government, and prepares the ground for a new one. Hereditary dictators don't normally switch over to democracy just because you asked them to. It may be in their PEOPLE's interest, but it's not in the DICTATOR's interest.
2-
Tried. Go find and read the Green Book. It doesn't work too well in conflict zones or dictatorships where aid has a habit of been redirected to somebody's coffers.
3-
The Chinese people, with their history of being dominated by foreigners, might resent external involvement. They have to find democracy by themselves, and it's going to take a while for roughly 1.6B that have
As for Russia, Russia can FUBAR the US's foreign policy repeatedly through its UN/SC veto (which the American and European left will insist that we adhere to, of course). I suspect that there's a tacit deal -- the US overlooks Chechnya, and the Russians play ball on Iraq and the War on Terrorism. The EU can better afford to criticize Russia, as it's less likely to do something requiring Russian backing.
4-
The Iraqi's aren't screwed both ways; it's not like they're mindless children dependent on the Baath party maintaining power. Once, in fact, they were among the most educated, wealthiest Arab countries around... and with a little assistance and removal of certain leaders, they could again be in that position.
As for all the paper, none of the treaties that the UN demands are worth a dime if they're ignored with no consequences... and refusing to SIGN a treaty is very different from refusing to IMPLEMENT a signed treaty. One is staying away, and the other is breaking one's word. The US never agreed to SIGN all treaties put before it, whereas Iraq AGREED to disarm.
Oh, and the US does NOT have the power to lift up the world; generally, people seem to have too high expectations of its power, like the Arabs who believe that Bush could call Sharon and suddenly there'd be a peace deal, ergo the US is to blame for not doing so. Not so. The US has SOME power, but it does not control other states; it has some economic and military leverage, but even that only goes so far. In many cases, regional problems demand regional solutions. The US can feed people, but first the people who don't want them to be fed must be dealt with. The US can encourage democracy through diplomacy, but we can only rarely impose it (e.g. Afghanistan, and even that brought protests. Incidentally, US SpecOps people were sometimes asked by locals to be their mayors / other officials, heh. Not their role; the locals need to learn to rule themselves.) The US can -- sometimes -- deal with a dictator, but the locals need to cooperate to resolve what happens afterwards...
Um, no. Bush's domestic agenda has gone nowhere -- even the Homeland Security mess is delayed due to a fight over union/work rules. His desired judges haven't been getting hearings, his SEC head just had to step down, his tax cuts may NOT be made permanent despite his desire to do so, his TIPS program was squashed due to public protest, /his/ drug plan is deadlocked with the Dem's drug plan, his "private investment account" idea for Social Security is deader than Abel...
What crack are you smoking?
Well, there's not just envy, but also severe doctrinal differences. None of the 11-Sep hijackers were exactly poor, if memory serves, and quite a few if not all received higher education in the western world.
However, the US isn't an Islamic theocracy, nor is it terribly friendly to terrorists, and they didn't exactly appreciate that.
Britain and France didn't give much of a damn, either, for the longest time. Read up on Hitler's fears on what would have happened if France had intervened early, when Germany began blatantly violating treaties, instead of waiting to be occupied.
Obviously, you haven't searched for either the contemporary or the modern definitions of "militia". Hint: they're very inclusive.
Oh, and read the first Militia Act with respect to who provided and stored the firearms.
Bullshit. Name some names of people who've burned flags without violating other ordinances like disorderly conduct, arson or trespassing, and have been arrested for it.