well rather than flame you for not being american i guess i can just respond like a rational human being. yes there are state level congresses, with state senators and governors representing 'districts' or whatever. it is the state legislature. the governor really wouldn't be that useful, they are almost always supporters of 'business', since they are prime targets for lobbyists. they don't have the power of the federal government to refuse to bow to pressures, and don't really have 'constituents' to respond to.
its the economy stupid
there is a balance between protecting people's rights as citizens and the bottom line of american corporations and their stock price.
if it passes, software companies will push other countries to pass similar laws, or 'stop selling them software.' of course they really wouldn't stop selling software. they would just stop selling complete crap that is pushed out too fast
the one thing in that article i disagree with is where it says labor costs are increasing. while certainly there is a tight market in nifty high tech areas, most service or product techs are not in this category. 'real wages' have been decreasing steadily for most workers. at the same time profits and stock prices are rocketing. the claim that customer service can't be afforded is probably untrue. what is true is that it's not worth any money to them to have good service. why does this surprise people? all that matters to a corporation is the bottom line, just the way it should be. this might make people think government should be involved in doing things like breaking up monopolies. but screw the government. companies should screw people who don't give them a lot of money and thats all there is to it.
if libertarians had their way, and there was no local government to encourage other companies to attempt to service the area, would you be even worse off?
anything the government buys can be specified to work in a certain way. the government doesn't generally sues its contractors because it is a waste of money. instead it makes them pay a million extra $ or so and sends the broken stuff back to get fixed
this is a pretty weak troll, good enough a year ago but probably not today. besides since when are average users the market? they don't buy shit. corporations, now thats where the money is
i've recently listened to a lot of foreigners express disappointment and even horror at the latest presidential campaign. most journalists are reporting expectations that under 50% of all voting age people are going to vote. certainly an election that was more inclusive towards those serious politicians that aren't in the democrat or republican party would have some influence on apathy. maybe turning the debates more into actual debates, where the candidates engage in discussion would make them more human to voters. the threat isn't politics itself, but that the democracy fails when people aren't voicing their opinions or aren't allowed to make their voices heard. this is a great reason to consider supporting 3rd party candidates not just in this election, but also in local elections. also all the people that are complaining about corporate control need to try at least voting locally, and maybe even becoming involved in campaigns or running.
ok, i'm troll bait. no he's not going to win this election, and he freely admits it. yes, your vote for nader means more than your gore/bush vote unless you live in one of the few highly contested states with a lot of electoral college votes (ohio and florida, eg).
i'd also like to comment on his call for a ban on surveillance (#4) is unenforceable, a law requiring disclosure would be better (a sign that says you are being videotaped) simply because if businesses complied at all people would start getting the idea. also a law in maine preventing disclosure has failed miserably, people have been prevented from such things as bringing flower to friends. again i think disclosure about what is going to happen to your record is a better choice. a lot of this is kind of wishful thinking that will 'bloat' government but not actually accomplish much. don't get me wrong i'm a nader supporter all the way but i don't think he's got all of these right
your comment is full of misguided fears and half truths. number one with a little help the internet provides nearly unlimited access to journals through systems like jstor. most public schools can't afford any sort of journal subscription. sure i agree elementary school kids aren't writing research papers, but if they learn how to look things up on the internet (under a teacher/librarian's supervision), they will be better prepared than i was. which brings me to my other point, to rebut your point about the internet being an 'easy way out' of school work. sure its possible, but it's also possible that students are getting off the hook when it comes to doing research and critical thinking because most schools can't afford any sort of decent store of information (encyclopedias don't count, i'm talking modern journals, etc). an optimist might expect this to create a generation that's not lazier than what 'we current have' (although whether that's true or not is debatable) but instead is more able to critically read and understand arguments and information about a wide area of subjects, allowing them to identify their interests and passions earlier in life and make meaningful contributions.
I don't want my tax dollars going to systems that a) stop me from accessing legal(not obscene) information that may be blocked by filtering software and b) doing your job as a parent.
the laws basically say something is obscene if the local community thinks its obscene. so if the local community had control over the (open) list of blocked sites/words, it sounds like a good idea. but it becomes a problem when its some proprietary software people don't understand blocking people from information on breast cancer. at which point people start acting like information about breast cancer is obscene
yea those irresponsible teachers, making a mere 30K a year. and you assume that you have the right to have the good fortune in life (healthy, at least middle class parents; decent schools; no disabilities, disease, or mental illness). yes you have a god given right to your money, and screw everybody else. and since when are the ultra rich 'responsible'? children of the wealthy make equally 'bad life choices', but do they suffer?
according to nader, national polls have put him between 4 and 8%. also, since these polls only ask 'likely' voters, they leave out a lot of people who have never voted before (young voters) who tend to support nader (and browne somewhat). and although the poll numbers supporting nader aren't that high, the numbers in polls asking 'should third party candidates be involved in the debate?' are consistently answered yes. why should the polling criteria be used at all? why not just the electoral college rule?
if the state you're in is not closely contested (like texas, for instance) than your vote for bush or gore won't matter anyway. and if you think a 3rd party vote won't matter, look at the 2 major parties shift in views towards the voters who supported perot.
i never went by score, i played the windows version and the score would roll over. i just counted lines, my max was about 450, but i saw a guy get 520 while he was bitching out his annoying girlfriend on the phone. truly the most impressive bit of gaming i've ever seen.
Slashdot Mirror
well rather than flame you for not being american i guess i can just respond like a rational human being. yes there are state level congresses, with state senators and governors representing 'districts' or whatever. it is the state legislature. the governor really wouldn't be that useful, they are almost always supporters of 'business', since they are prime targets for lobbyists. they don't have the power of the federal government to refuse to bow to pressures, and don't really have 'constituents' to respond to.
its the economy stupid
there is a balance between protecting people's rights as citizens and the bottom line of american corporations and their stock price.
if it passes, software companies will push other countries to pass similar laws, or 'stop selling them software.' of course they really wouldn't stop selling software. they would just stop selling complete crap that is pushed out too fast
one large company easily has enough capital to dictate local policy.
the one thing in that article i disagree with is where it says labor costs are increasing. while certainly there is a tight market in nifty high tech areas, most service or product techs are not in this category. 'real wages' have been decreasing steadily for most workers. at the same time profits and stock prices are rocketing. the claim that customer service can't be afforded is probably untrue. what is true is that it's not worth any money to them to have good service. why does this surprise people? all that matters to a corporation is the bottom line, just the way it should be. this might make people think government should be involved in doing things like breaking up monopolies. but screw the government. companies should screw people who don't give them a lot of money and thats all there is to it.
if libertarians had their way, and there was no local government to encourage other companies to attempt to service the area, would you be even worse off?
nod i thought esperanto was the attempt at a global language. people don't like it though, even though its really easy to learn.
anything the government buys can be specified to work in a certain way. the government doesn't generally sues its contractors because it is a waste of money. instead it makes them pay a million extra $ or so and sends the broken stuff back to get fixed
this is a pretty weak troll, good enough a year ago but probably not today. besides since when are average users the market? they don't buy shit. corporations, now thats where the money is
i've recently listened to a lot of foreigners express disappointment and even horror at the latest presidential campaign. most journalists are reporting expectations that under 50% of all voting age people are going to vote. certainly an election that was more inclusive towards those serious politicians that aren't in the democrat or republican party would have some influence on apathy. maybe turning the debates more into actual debates, where the candidates engage in discussion would make them more human to voters. the threat isn't politics itself, but that the democracy fails when people aren't voicing their opinions or aren't allowed to make their voices heard. this is a great reason to consider supporting 3rd party candidates not just in this election, but also in local elections. also all the people that are complaining about corporate control need to try at least voting locally, and maybe even becoming involved in campaigns or running.
browne would. his assumption is that people (markets) wouldn't support a company that was misusing said information.
if you haven't noticed, support for al seems to highly outweighed here by support for either browne or gw. i've seen very little interest in gore.
ok, i'm troll bait. no he's not going to win this election, and he freely admits it. yes, your vote for nader means more than your gore/bush vote unless you live in one of the few highly contested states with a lot of electoral college votes (ohio and florida, eg).
i'd also like to comment on his call for a ban on surveillance (#4) is unenforceable, a law requiring disclosure would be better (a sign that says you are being videotaped) simply because if businesses complied at all people would start getting the idea. also a law in maine preventing disclosure has failed miserably, people have been prevented from such things as bringing flower to friends. again i think disclosure about what is going to happen to your record is a better choice. a lot of this is kind of wishful thinking that will 'bloat' government but not actually accomplish much. don't get me wrong i'm a nader supporter all the way but i don't think he's got all of these right
your comment is full of misguided fears and half truths. number one with a little help the internet provides nearly unlimited access to journals through systems like jstor. most public schools can't afford any sort of journal subscription. sure i agree elementary school kids aren't writing research papers, but if they learn how to look things up on the internet (under a teacher/librarian's supervision), they will be better prepared than i was. which brings me to my other point, to rebut your point about the internet being an 'easy way out' of school work. sure its possible, but it's also possible that students are getting off the hook when it comes to doing research and critical thinking because most schools can't afford any sort of decent store of information (encyclopedias don't count, i'm talking modern journals, etc). an optimist might expect this to create a generation that's not lazier than what 'we current have' (although whether that's true or not is debatable) but instead is more able to critically read and understand arguments and information about a wide area of subjects, allowing them to identify their interests and passions earlier in life and make meaningful contributions.
I don't want my tax dollars going to systems that a) stop me from accessing legal(not obscene) information that may be blocked by filtering software and b) doing your job as a parent.
the laws basically say something is obscene if the local community thinks its obscene. so if the local community had control over the (open) list of blocked sites/words, it sounds like a good idea. but it becomes a problem when its some proprietary software people don't understand blocking people from information on breast cancer. at which point people start acting like information about breast cancer is obscene
yea those irresponsible teachers, making a mere 30K a year. and you assume that you have the right to have the good fortune in life (healthy, at least middle class parents; decent schools; no disabilities, disease, or mental illness). yes you have a god given right to your money, and screw everybody else. and since when are the ultra rich 'responsible'? children of the wealthy make equally 'bad life choices', but do they suffer?
according to nader, national polls have put him between 4 and 8%. also, since these polls only ask 'likely' voters, they leave out a lot of people who have never voted before (young voters) who tend to support nader (and browne somewhat). and although the poll numbers supporting nader aren't that high, the numbers in polls asking 'should third party candidates be involved in the debate?' are consistently answered yes. why should the polling criteria be used at all? why not just the electoral college rule?
nader had a ticket to the debate but was denied entrance.
if the state you're in is not closely contested (like texas, for instance) than your vote for bush or gore won't matter anyway. and if you think a 3rd party vote won't matter, look at the 2 major parties shift in views towards the voters who supported perot.
ok i'm not a big linux geek so i don't know but i thought this was an x thing not an e thing? am i wrong?
so now because of his looks you're saying this? you're just as bad as the people you're talking about
yea i guess, although i definately was always baked when i was playing for 4 straight hours
what about the age? to me 16 seems more appropriate.
i never went by score, i played the windows version and the score would roll over. i just counted lines, my max was about 450, but i saw a guy get 520 while he was bitching out his annoying girlfriend on the phone. truly the most impressive bit of gaming i've ever seen.