That's not really racism as much as territorial and tribalism. You have to introduce new birds slowly and occupy the time of the more aggressive birds so that they notice the others but don't bother themselves with them for a while. eventually, they will forget about it.
Roosters are the males protecting the flock. That's why they are valuable even if your just raising layers. Your uncles scenario is more about pecking order and a threat to that order then anything racial or species related.
As someone else pointed out, the last set of welfare reforms enacted was by a republican congress.
However, in at least two of the last 10 years, the republicans controled both houses and the presidency and no one attempted to eliminate welfare. That sort of makes your statement a little invalid. Instead, what you are seeing is the reforms being offered to welfare being claimed or labeled to be dismantling it and destroying it. This is in contrast to what you think but is supportive of your idea of divisive politics. You might want to reconsider which side is pushing it though.
As for tenured professors, it doesn't really matter how hot headed they are, OSHA laws and rules aren't negotiable when it comes to application. If they are ignoring safety rules and putting students at risk, then they should be at least as legally liable as the job foreman who did the same things. And yes, not only have job foremen been sued for ignoring OSHA rules that resulted in injuries to the public or other workers, they have gone to jail when serious injury and death have occurred.
Yeah, but if there are problems with welfare - you fix them. Too many on the right use the problems as an excuse to suggest that you ditch it.
I never said anything about ditching welfare. Although starting over is probably the best approach to fixing it.
The same applies to government. Trying to make do with less governance isn't the solution to problems with government - instead what needs to be done is address the specific problems rather than running away and going "Aiiieee, government is evil".
Actually, less government is the solution to many of the problems. This country was founded on the premise of less government. Look up the concept of liberty sometime and then compare it to how many times it is mentioned in the development of our nation.
The right government is the other problem. Too many people seem to think the federal government is supposed to be restricting how much water you can use to water your lawn with or how much fat can be in the foods you prepare yourself. Try reading the dame constitution, the federalist papers, Jefferson's letters and so on about the creation and founding of this country. The federal government has overstepped it's grounds enormously and has taken on the roles that are constitutionally left to the states or the people. I don't care if you have some affection for the NEA who couldn't do their own math well enough to provide a proper accounting of their expenses, the feds have no business in it. The states do and the local governments do however. And this shift from that principle is the same shift that stopped or slowed all that was productive and resourceful America and made it great. Well unless you count the dotcom bubble where people were taking tons of investment money and doing nothing with it as one of the great things in America.
The whole lack of regulation has brought us to this present crisis. And now there are those who forget that the lack of regulation happened for a reason - a reaction to the ill-considered regulation we had previously. Nevertheless, it should now be obvious that what we need is good regulation (and even that some element of bad regulation along with it is better than none).
Wow, your not only drinking the kool-aid, your preparing it and passing it out. It took an act of regulation to create the credit swaps behind the bulk of the problems and it took an act of regulation that allowed all of the banks to merge which made these to big to fail super banks. The problem wasn't the lack of regulation, it was the wrong type of regulation and the lack of enforcement of it. Look at the Bernie Madoff ponzy scam, it had been reported several times to the fed but they didn't investigate until after he was broke and lost everyone else' money.
But, regulation on a national level isn't always good. Neither is it constitutional. Most of those regulations belong to the state levels of government which the people within the state can impact more readily as their needs change.
It's also no mystery where you get your information. The so-called "studies" that are cited to prove this presumption have sample populations skewed heavily toward the humanities, the (gasp!) "liberal arts." The rebuttals to these refuted pseudo-scientific studies (conducted by right wing think tanks) show that in most STEM disciplines (Science-Technology-Engineering-Math), the tilt is almost invisible.
As someone else already pointed out, this isn't a right wing conspiracy, it's just the way things are.
Now I could go into the conspiracy BS and show why they are that way and even point to the political philosophy that started it all. But you can look at all the right wing studies and books showing that for yourself.
How are you justifying your ideological rant (minimum wage, welfare, bawwww!) when the question here is one of experience? There's almost no connection between your assertion and the loose concoction of evidence you supply. Turning this into a two-sides infotainment panel discussion will do nothing but ensure stagnation where actual reasoned discussion is needed.
If you want to ignore all the availible evidence to post support for a failed policy, that is your problem not mine. All you need to do is look at the results of the programs and the evidence it provides. When you pull your head out of your ass and start working with reality and not some make believe place in your head, come back and talk to us. In fact, that specifically was the entire point of what was being said, the left seems to think all is good because the imagined it that way which is in reality totally different. Hell, a quick look at the most liberal places in America will show that they have the highest crime rates, the largest drug associated problems, the most homeless and unemployment and so on. My home state ended up electing a democrat governor after roughly 24 years or more of republicans at the helm and they raised minimum wage to above the national minimum wage. We went from always having one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country to being right up there with California and are leading the country's numbers instead of trailing them. Of course taxes has something to do with that too.
Either wake up and look around or sit down and shut up.
It isn't as much of a left v right as it is a look ma no hands-do as i say not as I do situation.
It isn't no mystery that the left is big ob regulating industry and about everything else. It's also no mystery that the left primarily dominates the colleges. What is a mystery is how the left seems to want to say pay attention to what I say not what happened when I do something about what I say. The parent was pointing that out. It's like welfare in which it's actually more difficult to get off of it then it is to stay on. You need to land a job earning around 25 to 30 percent above minimum wage in order to replace the assistance you get. Yet when you get a minimum wage job, you lose almost all assistance right off the bat and are worse off then when on assistance. Well if it is there to help people in need, then it shouldn't be doing that, it should be giving a hand up not a hand out. But the way it is presented as is a compasionate system to help those in need when the reality is that it's designed to create a dependency that can be used to entice people to perpetually vote for a certain party and depend on them being in power.
Long story short, this is another prime example of saying one thing when the reality is quite different. As long as someone employed is supervising the students, then OSHA rules apply. Consumer protection rules apply outside that which pretty much imply OSHA rules yet we are being told that it simple isn't the case in the left controlled bastion of hope.
OSHA doesn't protect students worse then employees. They are a set of standards with some strict rules and as long as an employee is supervising, no matter how many students are in the lab or whatever, the OSHA rules apply.
Now the Student isn't on their own if an instructor isn't present either. They are protected by consumer protection laws which means that the lab should have at minimum, guidelines that match OSHA requirements for everyone if not more stringent guidelines because of previous lawsuits.
This entire premise of double standards is a croak and doesn't exist. The only thing OSHA coverage would have done is provided for a fine as well as a lawsuit when the student did something wrong and got killed. The lawsuit is still an option and even agreements not to sue can be invalidated if reasonable steps for safety weren't followed.
I'm on board with the rest of what you said, but this is simply wrong. The spike in energy costs was inconveniently timed, but the vast majority of foreclosures would have happened without it.
don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that energy costs was the only reason, I'm saying it multiplied those effected.
The real problem was the lending practices. There were a variety of loan types that were basically designed to fail, but the worst were the ones that came with a ridiculously low interest rate for the first 2-5 years. People bought houses they could barely afford at those rates, assuming that when the real interest rate kicked in they could refinance and enjoy the low rate for a few more years. However, when that time came, they couldn't refinance for a variety of reasons, including that their home was often then worth less than what they owed. Consequently, the monthly payment they already could only barely afford shot up, in many cases doubling or more.
Your creating a false dichotomy there. This is other options to refinancing which caused people to purchase sub-prime loans. One of those options was that normal raises and promotions would make the higher interest rates easier to afford and they could sack some of the extra money away to repairs and renovation. I personally know at least 5 people like this, two of whom lost their homes, 2 were ok, and the fifth has another year before shit hits the fan. He is considering partitioning part of the house off and renting it out if he can plumb and wire a kitchen for a reasonable amount of money. I probably know more people but this isn't something most people talk about.
Now there is another aspect to this outside of sub-prime loans. Its spending all your disposable income on inflated energy related costs like $5 gasoline, or the food bill that increased 30% in two years means less money is going to other places which means less work for other places which means that people who were perfectly fine paying their mortgage were now out of work and losing their homes.
Sure, you can blame it on the mechanics all you want and ignore the wrench that got thrown into the gears, but energy was a very big factor in the meltdown. It all cascaded and was as bad as it was because of inflated energy costs. You can't exclude high energy from the situation because it effects not only the person paying the mortgage who probably did purchase too much house (or the right amount of house for too much money) but the people working too which also effect the person paying the mortgage. High energy costs screws America period.
Yea, but you better include the cops, the city/county responsible with oversight of those cops, the guy's loved ones who reported him missing and about anyone else looking for the guy who thought $20 was too much to pay out of their own pockets or some petty cash fund or collected between the lot of them for the same convenience that they were insisting Verizon do in without the $20.
Hell, they probably spent more then $20 in gasoline alone while looking for him, not to mention all the overtime and extra man hours devoted to looking for him.
It's not about identification in that way, it's about finding the short dicked fuckers who have problems getting and keeping pussy. Those are the ones who have a lot of rage built up and will commit terrorists acts in general.
So this is change we can believe in. Instead of water boarding known terrorists, we are going after everyone with a small pecker. You see, all those nude picture at abu ghraib showed a pattern of short dicks and rejections that was later verified at club gitmo with the smallest of peckers belonging to terrorist who have resumed terrorist activities after their release. Now instead of having to torture terrorist bent on killing you or someone you know, we just round up the small peckered people and not worry too much about it.
Wear and decay patterns on what, the jewels which are harder them teeth or the teeth that had very primitive drills making holed in them to stuffer hard jewels inside them at some time?
Finding decayed food beyond the jewels which is probably impossible could possibility point to use while alive but the reality is that they created a story to fit what they found and none of it is fact but a probability.
We still don't know if the jewels were ever inside the teeth while they were alive. It may have been part of some burial ritual for wealthy people or some way to make people interested in seeing the dead off.
there are a lot of assumptions going on here. That's the problem with interpreting the past, you need to create a story for the finding rather then look for stories to find evidence to support.
Ha.. Me too.. well sort of, I finished my education at a community college 10 years ago but I live about 30 miles from the main campus and pop up to show the youngsters how to party a couple of times a year. Although the cops have been pricks lately (a couple of strange incidents on campus over the last few years like flashers and rapist and trashcan fires after home games which they blame on outsiders) so I haven't been around in a while.
Laws were way to force the subjects into doing what you wanted them to do. They were originally behavioral modifications dictated by kings and governments. In democracies or republics that use the English common law system (US), the laws are groups into separate categories due to their nature. There is a set of common laws based around the understandings of a society to function in a peaceful non-destructive way. This is generally considered common law which also is interpreted from tort. The other laws are laws which derive from a source of authority for any reason. This is the Code of laws that congress or whichever governing body creates for whatever reasons or purpose. It may be derived outside the necessity of a society or it may directly address it or even perhaps just a portion of it. In the US, this gets complicated because common law has a certain effect of real law and the federal government is restricted constitutionally in it's actions with the remainder being left to the states or the people. The US federal government has for some times now (more then a few previous administrations) attempted to extend their reach by exaggerating claims of constitutionality like the expansion of the interstate commerce clause or arbitrary readings of other clauses like the general welfare clause (which isn't a power but a preface to what power was given to the government).
Sometimes these laws dictate by kings or clergy were too restrictive which brought about the ideas of freedom and in particular liberty which the US was founded on. After some times, philosophers started commenting on several types of liberty or the consequences of liberty which can be narrowed into three categories. These categories are good liberty or positive liberty, bad liberty or negative liberty, and then subjective liberty which is either good or bad depending on which end your sitting at.
For a long time, the US accepted the bad with the good outside of a specific set of moralistic absolutes. Two main things have changed since then and political philosophies like Marxism (social-comun-ism) influenced this change to what you are considering the detriment of society. the first change was the use of the government to control the bad consequences of liberty without considering the effect of the good consequences of liberty. At one time in the US, someone could be flat broke, find a job, work for some funding, and start their own business or whatever that allowed the individual to be the masters of their own fate. Now, there are so many arcane laws on the books attempting to restrict the negative consequences of liberty that this is nearley impossible for the masses.
The second major change is the moral absolutes have become relative morals now. This is in part due to the political philosophies but it more largely due to the restructuring of laws to control the consequences of liberty. With relative morals people only seem to consider how their actions affect themselves which leads to more negative consequences and this causes more inane laws to prevent your stupid behavior from affecting me. Society in general is refusing to accept the bad with the good and they are refusing to think of someone other then themselves when conducting their actions.
Your griping about a good topic but your off on the how and why which will make and constructive changes impossible to be distinguished from the problems.
Another problem with representing yourself is perspective and relaying that perspective to someone else.
Have you ever had a conversation in which you got lost somewhere along the lines not because you weren't familiar with the subject material but because the other person assumed you knew something specific and therefor could follow everything? I'm sure you have, especially when it comes to someone attempting to explain certain actions or circumstances and reasons why they did something specific. A case in point might be explaining an accident on a slippery road and the misunderstanding created when you explain you were steering to the right when going around left hand corner. The commission might be that the oil slick left by the truck who left a valve open cause you to spin out while going around the corner and your corrective steering was to remain on the road as you spun out of control.
Anyways, a third party skilled in the ability to deliver a message can look at these discrepancies or omissions of understanding and make sure they are brought out when it really matters. I'm not sure how many times I've lost or almost lost a debate or had one extend way longer then it should just to find we are on the same page because one of us assumed the other party was privileged to information the other didn't know. In a trial type situation, it may very well be after the verdict is in before this comes to light. With a third party attempting to make sure the entire issue or position is known, there is a better chance that if anything is needed to be known to understand the position, it will be relayed as well. You also get an outside looking in perspective to your position when watching someone else convey it which helps in this too.
I think we are on the same pages then. Well at least close enough to know what the other thinks about the subjects anyways.
I've been wanting to ask, the OSU in your moniker, is that a reference to the college you attend (attended) or is it something else. You don't need to explain if you don't want. Anyways, I was wondering if it was a reference to a college, if it was Oregon State or Oklahoma State or Ohio State or whichever.
I think maybe you should stop assuming things not said and injecting your own information into the submission. It will make you look a lot less ignorant. Here are a few hints.
First, Slashdot does not equal the Linux community and just because there is an open source and linux bias, it in no way means the best of the linux community is here.
Second, who said anything about Linux or wine in the first place? The submitter said his fiance has a net book not a linux boxen. Netbooks run windows XP and/or linux with a few that has been able to dual boot with some work. Seeing how he didn't mention Linux or wine at all, and that he considered running COH in the netbook but realized it was way under powered, we can safely assume it's running XP.
Third, calling bullshit on having a fiance when you can't even read and understand the post is pathetic. My 7 year old has better comprehension then you do. I can only assume that you have a learning disability so I will excuse this behavior and attempt to assist you in the future with understanding what is written in plain english in front of you.
Fourth and finally, if she is sleeping with someone else, what does it matter? They may walk that way or it could be completely your own imagination as the rest of your post was. It seems that you have a problem with women and Linux and have a problem of inferring your discomfort with either onto others. It's probably related to your learning disability that you demonstrate so proficiently so I will attempt to help you out a little. Now I want you to think about this before replying. "it's not of your concern whether she is sleeping with anyone including her fiance or not". It simple is non of your business unless one of them make it your business or you part of the business.
You know, replying to you reminds me of s time back in 1986 or so when we were standing in line at a "buzzards nest" music store to get tickets to either metallica or pantera which was sidelining a concert somewhere near by. All the sudden we hear this long dragged our scream of excitement "YEA,"- "TOAST". We looked around and there was one of those kids who wears a bicycle helmet when when reading and he evidently found something in his mom's pocket book that he was so proud to be helping carry as they were walking by us on their way to a K-mart. So I have to ask, do you wear a helmet when doing trivial tasks too?
There used to be one called PC buddy or something like that too. I test drove is back in the late 90's and when in use, it made both consoles about one quarter the speed of the original single CPU while it also defaulted to some simulated software graphic accelerator and ignores any hardware capabilities on the video card.
Depends on where the outage is. Suppose you have your own internal network and the applications in question are hosted on an outside (intranet side) of the network like google docs or your accounting software.
A lot of the practical stuff that make a computer useful to normal people are inside the network. Accounting software, those elcheapo 3-d interior or landscape design programs, games (even if just solitaire), or whatever side use you have found for the computer. Granted, not everyone will have stuff like that but the majority of people will. I can update my GPS from my computer and install maps with amazing detailed for road trips in the country or nav charts for any lake in my area and go fishing as well as most marked trails at state parks and such.
Computers have not only made communications and entertainment easier, they have made certain aspects of why you would want to have those and how you enjoy them easier.
I think there are similarities to be drawn between "strict constructionists/textualists" and biblical literalists. I fundamentally take issue with the idea that it is even possible to read a text without interpreting it.
Part of this problem is that literary styles and definitions have changed from before and after the constitution was written and adopted. However, we are not at a loss because there are tools like the federalist papers, records of debate, dictionaries, letters between architects of the nation (with Jefferson being the most common because of his station in France at this time). What this allows us to do is to find the common and proper interpretations to near enough accuracy that the intent can be established.
Specifically, the necessary and proper clause and the commerce clause are almost comically open-ended, and it's better to couch your interpretations in something (e.g. the intent of the founders or contemporary social understanding), rather than to just wash your hands and pretend that your interpretation is reflected, right there on the face of the document.
This again goes to the tools availible that I mentioned above. Most of the founding fathers were greatly influenced by the idea of liberty which is outlined greatly in detail in concept in several works preceding the founding of the nation. They even went to great lengths to express the idea of liberty in contrast to tyranny in the absence of it. People like John Locke spent a great deal of time creating and expanding on the concepts of liberty and sovereignty and natural rights. Things like the necessary and proper clause or the to promote the general welfare clause need to be examined in not only this lite but in the literary styles of the times. It's sort of like the second amendment, a well regulated militia meant a militia that could hit their targets not disciplined soldiers as well as the wording was reasoning to why the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed instead of how it specifically couldn't be infringed as some have attempted to claim in the past. (see the DC gun ban supreme court case for more on that).
Anyways, face value is pretty much what is needed except we need to understand the face value at the time it was written.
In cases where the law or the constitution are clear, social values don't trump the constitution. But clear cases aren't taken up by SCOTUS, so I'd prefer those justices don't tell me that their interpretation is clearly in the written document.
The problem I have is that it can almost always be clear on both the intent and the letter. What sometimes becomes unclear is when a specific circumstance is involved. Is burning a flag free speech? if the fire code that is currently used to persecute flag burners capable of hampering the unrestricted free speech? And when it's a long standing military custom to make surrendering or defeated forces strike or destroy their own flag (colors) as a sign of submission, does that influence any of the speech that is restricted from being free?
BTW, most people think a colorless white flag means surrender but it actually means no allegiance in the specific actions and infers a request for a truce. Colors are used on the flags to show allegiance in both battle and protection (think of why ships fly flags). Anyways, this isn't really connected but brings up another possibility of conflict when flying a white flag could have the same speech value as burning a flag.
I think your confused. First, there is nothing limiting the system in the US to two parties outside the participation of third parties. Second, what you are referring to as a default two party system is little more then a coalition of groups to amass power. It exists in every system that has elected representatives that can act for the benefit of the political entity or the people. The current democrat an republicans are exactly that, the results of long standing coalitions between several parties united under one name.
If three parties are present and one party gets 40% of the vote with the other two splitting the remainder, or even a 35-25 split, then the parties will have to work together to get something done. Some things in the federal government are harder to accomplish because of thier nature which means even more cooperation will need to be done. It's the same with just two parties if neither house is controlled by a single party. However, in any case, it isn't detrimental to the people because in order to get control of the house or senate, a majority of people would have had to of supported them at some point in time. In short, it would have been the expressed will of the people at the time the votes were cast.
The two party system exists solely out of convenience and the lack of effort put forth by third parties and the combination of third parties into permanent coalitions in which the make up of both dominant parties today is the result of.
The big problem is that people misconstrue the power and role of the federal government. It isn't to represent the people as most idiots think. It's to put a common face on a collection of states and to represent the states in foreign affairs and in matters that the states aren't capable of handling unbiasedly between themselves. That's why congress needs to approve any interstate agreements and regulates commerce between the states. That's why the constitution specifically put limits on the states but also places limits on the federal government and then reserves all other rights to the states and the people.
When you look at the federal government in this light, you can easily see that the federal government is supposed to be an extension of the states in which it works with the several states to archive a common goal. It originally was divided into two sets of state representation with the senate being appointed by the states and the states deciding how to appoint electors to vote on the president. With the people being represented in the house of representatives and directly relative to the population. If you look, you will also see that there are two ways you can ammend the constitution that would be unconstitutional. one of them had to do with taxes and importing people into a state before 1808 while the other which is still in effect today and would create an unconstitutional amendment to the constitution deals with "states" getting their proper representation. You should see why it is imperative for any third party to gain support throughout a state before expecting support or viability on a federal level. If you or any third party looks at the federal government in any other light, you will be confused claiming that there is a two party system out of some design and you will be confused as well as disappointed when third party efforts fail miserably.
Until they get the into their heads, no third party will be viable outside of forcing issues to the table and making politicians recognize that the people have an interest in them. The federal government is not a supreme branch of government with unlimited powers over the people, it's little more then an extension of state governments and for any third party to exist on a federal level, they need to exist and be supported on a state and local level.
I call bullshit. The two party system only exists because no third party is willing to put an effort forward to gain the grass roots support that the two major parties have. A lot of that has to do with not a lot of people agreeing with everything they say and the third parties basically following the other parties with a few minor exceptions.
Currently the third parties are good for forcing issues into the main stream tables and making candidates acknowledge that at least some of the public is interested in/concerned about them. This is because of the third parties lack of effort and lack of uniqueness, not a two party system or anything inherent that makes it a two party system.
What do you mean a link between Al Quaeda and Clinton? We know Clinton bailed on a couple of opportunities to assassinate Bin Laden, We know that Clinton and many democrats of the era constantly complained about how big of a threat Al Quaeda and Iraq was. I don't think anyone has ever looked for a link between them other then that nor have they stated one existed.
Clinton and Al Quaeda were not operating together in any way.
By current crop of retards, do you mean the administration? The people who put them in office, both, or government in general? I'm wondering because some of them can't bother to be consistently outraged by important things like those required by the PRA to be retained coming up missing when someone attempts to archive them into the digital records system.
I mean we should be hearing shouts of incompetence and dirty dealings with some conspiracy connected to Hillary or something by now but we haven't. Of course when the same thing happens to Bush's emails, it was worse then the Kennedy assassinations.
Anyways, if the retards are the current administration and those who put him in office, I think it's more of a don't care as long as it benefits them thing then actually being retarded. However, they do attempt to prove me wrong often.
It's not as much the way we teach kids as it is some kids need different methods of teaching. It's almost like your favorite color, you could find blue to be really pleasing and I can find it depressing. It isn't because something is wrong with any of us, it's because we are unique and different individuals.
As for forgetting something after the test, well you need to either use it or lose it. I know working professionals who have forgottent half the stuff they could ramble on about at will just a few years after retiring. It's not because they are old and their mind is going, it's because they aren't using the information enough to remember it.
A case in point, I used to work at a family dining restaurant some 15 years ago when going to school. I had ever recipe in the store memorized and could recited them to anyone asking and I could easily double or halve them in my head as I was prepping or preparing the stuff. Now, 15 years later, I can barely remember half the ingredients to some of the stuff let alone how much went into the creations or how many servings you got from it. And that was something I did for 5 years.
Now, about the high school kids who can't read. This was more common when I was in school then it is now but it still happens. The problem isn't sports or coaches pushing the kids through, it's a combination of a lot of things. Teachers no caring or being equipt to handle students that are so far behind everyone else is part of it. A system that doesn't want a 16 year old teen in sixth grade or an 18 year old in middle school is another part of the problem. Some teachers are actually afraid of some of the students and won't flunk them out of fear of retribution while others are take pitty and pass them thinking there is no hope for more and they think they would be screwed or forced into a life of crime without the basic necessities like a diploma.
There are all sorts of reasons, teaching kids the wrong way are way down on the list and effect only a minority of students. The school teachers in question just graduated college and trained in that area and failed to demonstrate their abilities. There could be any number of reasons but most likely it would be the universities the obtained their degrees in.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not really racism as much as territorial and tribalism. You have to introduce new birds slowly and occupy the time of the more aggressive birds so that they notice the others but don't bother themselves with them for a while. eventually, they will forget about it.
Roosters are the males protecting the flock. That's why they are valuable even if your just raising layers. Your uncles scenario is more about pecking order and a threat to that order then anything racial or species related.
As someone else pointed out, the last set of welfare reforms enacted was by a republican congress.
However, in at least two of the last 10 years, the republicans controled both houses and the presidency and no one attempted to eliminate welfare. That sort of makes your statement a little invalid. Instead, what you are seeing is the reforms being offered to welfare being claimed or labeled to be dismantling it and destroying it. This is in contrast to what you think but is supportive of your idea of divisive politics. You might want to reconsider which side is pushing it though.
As for tenured professors, it doesn't really matter how hot headed they are, OSHA laws and rules aren't negotiable when it comes to application. If they are ignoring safety rules and putting students at risk, then they should be at least as legally liable as the job foreman who did the same things. And yes, not only have job foremen been sued for ignoring OSHA rules that resulted in injuries to the public or other workers, they have gone to jail when serious injury and death have occurred.
I never said anything about ditching welfare. Although starting over is probably the best approach to fixing it.
Actually, less government is the solution to many of the problems. This country was founded on the premise of less government. Look up the concept of liberty sometime and then compare it to how many times it is mentioned in the development of our nation.
The right government is the other problem. Too many people seem to think the federal government is supposed to be restricting how much water you can use to water your lawn with or how much fat can be in the foods you prepare yourself. Try reading the dame constitution, the federalist papers, Jefferson's letters and so on about the creation and founding of this country. The federal government has overstepped it's grounds enormously and has taken on the roles that are constitutionally left to the states or the people. I don't care if you have some affection for the NEA who couldn't do their own math well enough to provide a proper accounting of their expenses, the feds have no business in it. The states do and the local governments do however. And this shift from that principle is the same shift that stopped or slowed all that was productive and resourceful America and made it great. Well unless you count the dotcom bubble where people were taking tons of investment money and doing nothing with it as one of the great things in America.
Wow, your not only drinking the kool-aid, your preparing it and passing it out. It took an act of regulation to create the credit swaps behind the bulk of the problems and it took an act of regulation that allowed all of the banks to merge which made these to big to fail super banks. The problem wasn't the lack of regulation, it was the wrong type of regulation and the lack of enforcement of it. Look at the Bernie Madoff ponzy scam, it had been reported several times to the fed but they didn't investigate until after he was broke and lost everyone else' money.
But, regulation on a national level isn't always good. Neither is it constitutional. Most of those regulations belong to the state levels of government which the people within the state can impact more readily as their needs change.
As someone else already pointed out, this isn't a right wing conspiracy, it's just the way things are.
Now I could go into the conspiracy BS and show why they are that way and even point to the political philosophy that started it all. But you can look at all the right wing studies and books showing that for yourself.
If you want to ignore all the availible evidence to post support for a failed policy, that is your problem not mine. All you need to do is look at the results of the programs and the evidence it provides. When you pull your head out of your ass and start working with reality and not some make believe place in your head, come back and talk to us. In fact, that specifically was the entire point of what was being said, the left seems to think all is good because the imagined it that way which is in reality totally different. Hell, a quick look at the most liberal places in America will show that they have the highest crime rates, the largest drug associated problems, the most homeless and unemployment and so on. My home state ended up electing a democrat governor after roughly 24 years or more of republicans at the helm and they raised minimum wage to above the national minimum wage. We went from always having one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country to being right up there with California and are leading the country's numbers instead of trailing them. Of course taxes has something to do with that too.
Either wake up and look around or sit down and shut up.
It isn't as much of a left v right as it is a look ma no hands-do as i say not as I do situation.
It isn't no mystery that the left is big ob regulating industry and about everything else. It's also no mystery that the left primarily dominates the colleges. What is a mystery is how the left seems to want to say pay attention to what I say not what happened when I do something about what I say. The parent was pointing that out. It's like welfare in which it's actually more difficult to get off of it then it is to stay on. You need to land a job earning around 25 to 30 percent above minimum wage in order to replace the assistance you get. Yet when you get a minimum wage job, you lose almost all assistance right off the bat and are worse off then when on assistance. Well if it is there to help people in need, then it shouldn't be doing that, it should be giving a hand up not a hand out. But the way it is presented as is a compasionate system to help those in need when the reality is that it's designed to create a dependency that can be used to entice people to perpetually vote for a certain party and depend on them being in power.
Long story short, this is another prime example of saying one thing when the reality is quite different. As long as someone employed is supervising the students, then OSHA rules apply. Consumer protection rules apply outside that which pretty much imply OSHA rules yet we are being told that it simple isn't the case in the left controlled bastion of hope.
OSHA doesn't protect students worse then employees. They are a set of standards with some strict rules and as long as an employee is supervising, no matter how many students are in the lab or whatever, the OSHA rules apply.
Now the Student isn't on their own if an instructor isn't present either. They are protected by consumer protection laws which means that the lab should have at minimum, guidelines that match OSHA requirements for everyone if not more stringent guidelines because of previous lawsuits.
This entire premise of double standards is a croak and doesn't exist. The only thing OSHA coverage would have done is provided for a fine as well as a lawsuit when the student did something wrong and got killed. The lawsuit is still an option and even agreements not to sue can be invalidated if reasonable steps for safety weren't followed.
don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that energy costs was the only reason, I'm saying it multiplied those effected.
Your creating a false dichotomy there. This is other options to refinancing which caused people to purchase sub-prime loans. One of those options was that normal raises and promotions would make the higher interest rates easier to afford and they could sack some of the extra money away to repairs and renovation. I personally know at least 5 people like this, two of whom lost their homes, 2 were ok, and the fifth has another year before shit hits the fan. He is considering partitioning part of the house off and renting it out if he can plumb and wire a kitchen for a reasonable amount of money. I probably know more people but this isn't something most people talk about.
Now there is another aspect to this outside of sub-prime loans. Its spending all your disposable income on inflated energy related costs like $5 gasoline, or the food bill that increased 30% in two years means less money is going to other places which means less work for other places which means that people who were perfectly fine paying their mortgage were now out of work and losing their homes.
Sure, you can blame it on the mechanics all you want and ignore the wrench that got thrown into the gears, but energy was a very big factor in the meltdown. It all cascaded and was as bad as it was because of inflated energy costs. You can't exclude high energy from the situation because it effects not only the person paying the mortgage who probably did purchase too much house (or the right amount of house for too much money) but the people working too which also effect the person paying the mortgage. High energy costs screws America period.
Finally, now my puppies and kittens will be safe.
Yea, but you better include the cops, the city/county responsible with oversight of those cops, the guy's loved ones who reported him missing and about anyone else looking for the guy who thought $20 was too much to pay out of their own pockets or some petty cash fund or collected between the lot of them for the same convenience that they were insisting Verizon do in without the $20.
Hell, they probably spent more then $20 in gasoline alone while looking for him, not to mention all the overtime and extra man hours devoted to looking for him.
It's not about identification in that way, it's about finding the short dicked fuckers who have problems getting and keeping pussy. Those are the ones who have a lot of rage built up and will commit terrorists acts in general.
So this is change we can believe in. Instead of water boarding known terrorists, we are going after everyone with a small pecker. You see, all those nude picture at abu ghraib showed a pattern of short dicks and rejections that was later verified at club gitmo with the smallest of peckers belonging to terrorist who have resumed terrorist activities after their release. Now instead of having to torture terrorist bent on killing you or someone you know, we just round up the small peckered people and not worry too much about it.
Wear and decay patterns on what, the jewels which are harder them teeth or the teeth that had very primitive drills making holed in them to stuffer hard jewels inside them at some time?
Finding decayed food beyond the jewels which is probably impossible could possibility point to use while alive but the reality is that they created a story to fit what they found and none of it is fact but a probability.
We still don't know if the jewels were ever inside the teeth while they were alive. It may have been part of some burial ritual for wealthy people or some way to make people interested in seeing the dead off.
there are a lot of assumptions going on here. That's the problem with interpreting the past, you need to create a story for the finding rather then look for stories to find evidence to support.
Ha.. Me too.. well sort of, I finished my education at a community college 10 years ago but I live about 30 miles from the main campus and pop up to show the youngsters how to party a couple of times a year. Although the cops have been pricks lately (a couple of strange incidents on campus over the last few years like flashers and rapist and trashcan fires after home games which they blame on outsiders) so I haven't been around in a while.
Go Bucks!
Nonsense.
Laws were way to force the subjects into doing what you wanted them to do. They were originally behavioral modifications dictated by kings and governments. In democracies or republics that use the English common law system (US), the laws are groups into separate categories due to their nature. There is a set of common laws based around the understandings of a society to function in a peaceful non-destructive way. This is generally considered common law which also is interpreted from tort. The other laws are laws which derive from a source of authority for any reason. This is the Code of laws that congress or whichever governing body creates for whatever reasons or purpose. It may be derived outside the necessity of a society or it may directly address it or even perhaps just a portion of it. In the US, this gets complicated because common law has a certain effect of real law and the federal government is restricted constitutionally in it's actions with the remainder being left to the states or the people. The US federal government has for some times now (more then a few previous administrations) attempted to extend their reach by exaggerating claims of constitutionality like the expansion of the interstate commerce clause or arbitrary readings of other clauses like the general welfare clause (which isn't a power but a preface to what power was given to the government).
Sometimes these laws dictate by kings or clergy were too restrictive which brought about the ideas of freedom and in particular liberty which the US was founded on. After some times, philosophers started commenting on several types of liberty or the consequences of liberty which can be narrowed into three categories. These categories are good liberty or positive liberty, bad liberty or negative liberty, and then subjective liberty which is either good or bad depending on which end your sitting at.
For a long time, the US accepted the bad with the good outside of a specific set of moralistic absolutes. Two main things have changed since then and political philosophies like Marxism (social-comun-ism) influenced this change to what you are considering the detriment of society. the first change was the use of the government to control the bad consequences of liberty without considering the effect of the good consequences of liberty. At one time in the US, someone could be flat broke, find a job, work for some funding, and start their own business or whatever that allowed the individual to be the masters of their own fate. Now, there are so many arcane laws on the books attempting to restrict the negative consequences of liberty that this is nearley impossible for the masses.
The second major change is the moral absolutes have become relative morals now. This is in part due to the political philosophies but it more largely due to the restructuring of laws to control the consequences of liberty. With relative morals people only seem to consider how their actions affect themselves which leads to more negative consequences and this causes more inane laws to prevent your stupid behavior from affecting me. Society in general is refusing to accept the bad with the good and they are refusing to think of someone other then themselves when conducting their actions.
Your griping about a good topic but your off on the how and why which will make and constructive changes impossible to be distinguished from the problems.
Another problem with representing yourself is perspective and relaying that perspective to someone else.
Have you ever had a conversation in which you got lost somewhere along the lines not because you weren't familiar with the subject material but because the other person assumed you knew something specific and therefor could follow everything? I'm sure you have, especially when it comes to someone attempting to explain certain actions or circumstances and reasons why they did something specific. A case in point might be explaining an accident on a slippery road and the misunderstanding created when you explain you were steering to the right when going around left hand corner. The commission might be that the oil slick left by the truck who left a valve open cause you to spin out while going around the corner and your corrective steering was to remain on the road as you spun out of control.
Anyways, a third party skilled in the ability to deliver a message can look at these discrepancies or omissions of understanding and make sure they are brought out when it really matters. I'm not sure how many times I've lost or almost lost a debate or had one extend way longer then it should just to find we are on the same page because one of us assumed the other party was privileged to information the other didn't know. In a trial type situation, it may very well be after the verdict is in before this comes to light. With a third party attempting to make sure the entire issue or position is known, there is a better chance that if anything is needed to be known to understand the position, it will be relayed as well. You also get an outside looking in perspective to your position when watching someone else convey it which helps in this too.
I think we are on the same pages then. Well at least close enough to know what the other thinks about the subjects anyways.
I've been wanting to ask, the OSU in your moniker, is that a reference to the college you attend (attended) or is it something else. You don't need to explain if you don't want. Anyways, I was wondering if it was a reference to a college, if it was Oregon State or Oklahoma State or Ohio State or whichever.
I think maybe you should stop assuming things not said and injecting your own information into the submission. It will make you look a lot less ignorant. Here are a few hints.
First, Slashdot does not equal the Linux community and just because there is an open source and linux bias, it in no way means the best of the linux community is here.
Second, who said anything about Linux or wine in the first place? The submitter said his fiance has a net book not a linux boxen. Netbooks run windows XP and/or linux with a few that has been able to dual boot with some work. Seeing how he didn't mention Linux or wine at all, and that he considered running COH in the netbook but realized it was way under powered, we can safely assume it's running XP.
Third, calling bullshit on having a fiance when you can't even read and understand the post is pathetic. My 7 year old has better comprehension then you do. I can only assume that you have a learning disability so I will excuse this behavior and attempt to assist you in the future with understanding what is written in plain english in front of you.
Fourth and finally, if she is sleeping with someone else, what does it matter? They may walk that way or it could be completely your own imagination as the rest of your post was. It seems that you have a problem with women and Linux and have a problem of inferring your discomfort with either onto others. It's probably related to your learning disability that you demonstrate so proficiently so I will attempt to help you out a little. Now I want you to think about this before replying. "it's not of your concern whether she is sleeping with anyone including her fiance or not". It simple is non of your business unless one of them make it your business or you part of the business.
You know, replying to you reminds me of s time back in 1986 or so when we were standing in line at a "buzzards nest" music store to get tickets to either metallica or pantera which was sidelining a concert somewhere near by. All the sudden we hear this long dragged our scream of excitement "YEA,"- "TOAST". We looked around and there was one of those kids who wears a bicycle helmet when when reading and he evidently found something in his mom's pocket book that he was so proud to be helping carry as they were walking by us on their way to a K-mart. So I have to ask, do you wear a helmet when doing trivial tasks too?
There used to be one called PC buddy or something like that too. I test drove is back in the late 90's and when in use, it made both consoles about one quarter the speed of the original single CPU while it also defaulted to some simulated software graphic accelerator and ignores any hardware capabilities on the video card.
Depends on where the outage is. Suppose you have your own internal network and the applications in question are hosted on an outside (intranet side) of the network like google docs or your accounting software.
A lot of the practical stuff that make a computer useful to normal people are inside the network. Accounting software, those elcheapo 3-d interior or landscape design programs, games (even if just solitaire), or whatever side use you have found for the computer. Granted, not everyone will have stuff like that but the majority of people will. I can update my GPS from my computer and install maps with amazing detailed for road trips in the country or nav charts for any lake in my area and go fishing as well as most marked trails at state parks and such.
Computers have not only made communications and entertainment easier, they have made certain aspects of why you would want to have those and how you enjoy them easier.
Part of this problem is that literary styles and definitions have changed from before and after the constitution was written and adopted. However, we are not at a loss because there are tools like the federalist papers, records of debate, dictionaries, letters between architects of the nation (with Jefferson being the most common because of his station in France at this time). What this allows us to do is to find the common and proper interpretations to near enough accuracy that the intent can be established.
This again goes to the tools availible that I mentioned above. Most of the founding fathers were greatly influenced by the idea of liberty which is outlined greatly in detail in concept in several works preceding the founding of the nation. They even went to great lengths to express the idea of liberty in contrast to tyranny in the absence of it. People like John Locke spent a great deal of time creating and expanding on the concepts of liberty and sovereignty and natural rights. Things like the necessary and proper clause or the to promote the general welfare clause need to be examined in not only this lite but in the literary styles of the times. It's sort of like the second amendment, a well regulated militia meant a militia that could hit their targets not disciplined soldiers as well as the wording was reasoning to why the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed instead of how it specifically couldn't be infringed as some have attempted to claim in the past. (see the DC gun ban supreme court case for more on that).
Anyways, face value is pretty much what is needed except we need to understand the face value at the time it was written.
The problem I have is that it can almost always be clear on both the intent and the letter. What sometimes becomes unclear is when a specific circumstance is involved. Is burning a flag free speech? if the fire code that is currently used to persecute flag burners capable of hampering the unrestricted free speech? And when it's a long standing military custom to make surrendering or defeated forces strike or destroy their own flag (colors) as a sign of submission, does that influence any of the speech that is restricted from being free?
BTW, most people think a colorless white flag means surrender but it actually means no allegiance in the specific actions and infers a request for a truce. Colors are used on the flags to show allegiance in both battle and protection (think of why ships fly flags). Anyways, this isn't really connected but brings up another possibility of conflict when flying a white flag could have the same speech value as burning a flag.
I think your confused. First, there is nothing limiting the system in the US to two parties outside the participation of third parties. Second, what you are referring to as a default two party system is little more then a coalition of groups to amass power. It exists in every system that has elected representatives that can act for the benefit of the political entity or the people. The current democrat an republicans are exactly that, the results of long standing coalitions between several parties united under one name.
If three parties are present and one party gets 40% of the vote with the other two splitting the remainder, or even a 35-25 split, then the parties will have to work together to get something done. Some things in the federal government are harder to accomplish because of thier nature which means even more cooperation will need to be done. It's the same with just two parties if neither house is controlled by a single party. However, in any case, it isn't detrimental to the people because in order to get control of the house or senate, a majority of people would have had to of supported them at some point in time. In short, it would have been the expressed will of the people at the time the votes were cast.
The two party system exists solely out of convenience and the lack of effort put forth by third parties and the combination of third parties into permanent coalitions in which the make up of both dominant parties today is the result of.
The big problem is that people misconstrue the power and role of the federal government. It isn't to represent the people as most idiots think. It's to put a common face on a collection of states and to represent the states in foreign affairs and in matters that the states aren't capable of handling unbiasedly between themselves. That's why congress needs to approve any interstate agreements and regulates commerce between the states. That's why the constitution specifically put limits on the states but also places limits on the federal government and then reserves all other rights to the states and the people.
When you look at the federal government in this light, you can easily see that the federal government is supposed to be an extension of the states in which it works with the several states to archive a common goal. It originally was divided into two sets of state representation with the senate being appointed by the states and the states deciding how to appoint electors to vote on the president. With the people being represented in the house of representatives and directly relative to the population. If you look, you will also see that there are two ways you can ammend the constitution that would be unconstitutional. one of them had to do with taxes and importing people into a state before 1808 while the other which is still in effect today and would create an unconstitutional amendment to the constitution deals with "states" getting their proper representation. You should see why it is imperative for any third party to gain support throughout a state before expecting support or viability on a federal level. If you or any third party looks at the federal government in any other light, you will be confused claiming that there is a two party system out of some design and you will be confused as well as disappointed when third party efforts fail miserably.
Until they get the into their heads, no third party will be viable outside of forcing issues to the table and making politicians recognize that the people have an interest in them. The federal government is not a supreme branch of government with unlimited powers over the people, it's little more then an extension of state governments and for any third party to exist on a federal level, they need to exist and be supported on a state and local level.
I call bullshit. The two party system only exists because no third party is willing to put an effort forward to gain the grass roots support that the two major parties have. A lot of that has to do with not a lot of people agreeing with everything they say and the third parties basically following the other parties with a few minor exceptions.
Currently the third parties are good for forcing issues into the main stream tables and making candidates acknowledge that at least some of the public is interested in/concerned about them. This is because of the third parties lack of effort and lack of uniqueness, not a two party system or anything inherent that makes it a two party system.
What do you mean a link between Al Quaeda and Clinton? We know Clinton bailed on a couple of opportunities to assassinate Bin Laden, We know that Clinton and many democrats of the era constantly complained about how big of a threat Al Quaeda and Iraq was. I don't think anyone has ever looked for a link between them other then that nor have they stated one existed.
Clinton and Al Quaeda were not operating together in any way.
By current crop of retards, do you mean the administration? The people who put them in office, both, or government in general? I'm wondering because some of them can't bother to be consistently outraged by important things like those required by the PRA to be retained coming up missing when someone attempts to archive them into the digital records system.
I mean we should be hearing shouts of incompetence and dirty dealings with some conspiracy connected to Hillary or something by now but we haven't. Of course when the same thing happens to Bush's emails, it was worse then the Kennedy assassinations.
Anyways, if the retards are the current administration and those who put him in office, I think it's more of a don't care as long as it benefits them thing then actually being retarded. However, they do attempt to prove me wrong often.
It's not as much the way we teach kids as it is some kids need different methods of teaching. It's almost like your favorite color, you could find blue to be really pleasing and I can find it depressing. It isn't because something is wrong with any of us, it's because we are unique and different individuals.
As for forgetting something after the test, well you need to either use it or lose it. I know working professionals who have forgottent half the stuff they could ramble on about at will just a few years after retiring. It's not because they are old and their mind is going, it's because they aren't using the information enough to remember it.
A case in point, I used to work at a family dining restaurant some 15 years ago when going to school. I had ever recipe in the store memorized and could recited them to anyone asking and I could easily double or halve them in my head as I was prepping or preparing the stuff. Now, 15 years later, I can barely remember half the ingredients to some of the stuff let alone how much went into the creations or how many servings you got from it. And that was something I did for 5 years.
Now, about the high school kids who can't read. This was more common when I was in school then it is now but it still happens. The problem isn't sports or coaches pushing the kids through, it's a combination of a lot of things. Teachers no caring or being equipt to handle students that are so far behind everyone else is part of it. A system that doesn't want a 16 year old teen in sixth grade or an 18 year old in middle school is another part of the problem. Some teachers are actually afraid of some of the students and won't flunk them out of fear of retribution while others are take pitty and pass them thinking there is no hope for more and they think they would be screwed or forced into a life of crime without the basic necessities like a diploma.
There are all sorts of reasons, teaching kids the wrong way are way down on the list and effect only a minority of students. The school teachers in question just graduated college and trained in that area and failed to demonstrate their abilities. There could be any number of reasons but most likely it would be the universities the obtained their degrees in.