Who says I steal anything? I'm a law-abiding citizen who happens to be outraged at the prospect of having my private communications searched through without a court order.
250.05 Eavesdropping.
A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he unlawfully engages in wiretapping, mechanical overhearing of a conversation, or intercepting or accessing of an electronic communication.
Eavesdropping is a class E felony.
In theory, they could attack encryption with man-in-the-middle during the key exchange
In theory, isn't this (or shouldn't this) all be illegal under wiretapping laws anyway?
As a private citizen I don't have the right to start monitoring my neighbors phone calls (even if those calls are broadcast into my house without encryption) just because I suspect she is dealing drugs. What gives my ISP the right to start monitoring my packets just because they suspect I'm pirating something?
And in you Dingle quote he's not even bitching about something Pelosi did as speaker
Your reading comprehension continues to amaze me. Let me help you out. Read the following very slowly and then note how it was also included in my original comment:
Mr. Dingell survived. But like colleagues in both parties, he has chafed under Ms. Pelosi's speakership at the centralization of decision-making within the House leadership. "It started under Gingrich," he said, "and it continues today."
Batshit irrelevant to the idea of supposed Democratic group think
I didn't say all Democrats think the same. Clearly they don't. Nor do all Republicans. All I said was that views that conflict with the agenda of the leadership will be dead on arrival. Dingell's second quote (you know, the one you haven't mentioned) tends to support this view. You have yet to refute this point. Instead you mentioned a couple of Senators when the original discussion was about the House and ignored the second paragraph I quoted from the NYT article.
Are they serving the red or the orange kool aid today?
As for the Senate, is it really fair that 80% of the population controls only 20% of the vote
Yes, it's perfectly fair. It's the United States of America, not the United People of America. I say this as a resident of the third most populous state in the country.
The original Virginia Resolutions that the Constitution is based upon didn't think so.They had both houses of Congress proportionally represented.
And the smaller states wouldn't ratify it. Instead of the big states deciding to go it alone and leave the smaller states as independent nations, they decided to compromise. I see no reason why that compromise isn't still valid. If you intend on taking away the Senate (technically impossible but let's assume not for the sake of the argument) then I hope you'll let Vermont, New Hampshire, Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, etc, etc leave the Union without bloodshed.
If you don't intend on taking away the Senate then I'd really like to hear a justification for why the same model that the US Senate uses (geographical representation) can't also be applied to the Upper Houses of the individual State Legislatures.
It was written by a small slave holding Republic way before modern communication or the idea that everyone should be entitled to vote
I didn't question that everyone should be entitled to vote, I just question what they should be entitled to vote for. Personally I don't think the Senate should be elected by the people of the states. Given that there are other Governmental agencies with control over our lives (the FCC comes to mind but I could name dozens of other ones) that we don't get to vote for I don't really see what the problem is.
The persecution/martyr complex of America's rural poor would be funny if it didn't have such negative real world outgrowths. The poor suffering NY upstate rural voters, so ignored by the NYS government that doesn't have an electoral college or a geography based Senate, such that they're forced to accept $11 billion from the city of New York each year that they don't give back in benefits.
Don't give back in benefits eh? How much do you suppose that watershed is worth? And who said anything about money? I was thinking more along the lines of the city forcing upstate to adopt it's policies (random example: the statewide smoking ban wasn't particularly popular around here) or sending us your convicts.
there doesn't appear to me to be much more of a rational basis for apportioning votes based on geography
So let's get rid of the Senate then. That's the logical conclusion of your argument.
fail to point out how the current system is in in any way better.
The current system isn't much better because we've allowed ourselves to add more democracy at the expense of our republican origins. The first thing I would do is repeal the 17th amendment and return the election of Senators to the State Legislature instead of the people therein. My Senator should be looking out for the interests of my state as a whole and defending it against encroachments on it's sovereignty by the Federal Government. Instead he's busy trying to sell his existing political platform to 50%+1 of the sheep and doesn't really give a damn if his policies encroach on the state.
Is the idea "if we can somehow put all the wolves in the same state, and spread out the sheep over the other states, then the wolves will be totally powerless to have sheep for dinner, no matter how many of them there are"?
The idea is that raw democracy is little better than mob rule and the Founding Fathers originally set up a system that watered down the impact of raw democracy. For better or worse (I'm obviously arguing worse) we've gotten away from that.
What screwed up ecosystem has more predators than prey animals anyway?
Ask a black person living in the South during time of Jim Crow if there were more predators than pray animals.
Ah, so Mr. "I talk to my Rep at least once a year, stop whining and make him answer to you" realizes the limits of the influence we have? You'd do it by blackmailing your State (the States draw the district lines) Legislature into doing it by voting their lazy asses out of office if they don't do it.
Minor disagreement, since representatives have direct control over comittees etc that could give undo influence to one district while no other district has any influence at all. This needs a lot of thought before you do it.
That's a fair point but I'm also tired of my Rep looking outside my district for funds. It allows him to be more partisan than he otherwise might be because he can seek the funds of the party loyalists everywhere as opposed to the party loyalists in my district.
Again, get rid of the electoral college. We will get many parties and a leader would have to negotiate a coalition. That would protect your district from reprisals.
I'm sorry but I don't want to see the electoral college go anywhere. The United States is a Republic, not a Democracy. The States retain their sovereignty.
No, my reasoning is that we shouldn't have a national vote for President and that the President should be selected by the individual states that still (theoretically) retain their sovereignty. If we have a national popular vote for President, then what's next? Should we abolish the US Senate because New Hampshire has the same number of Senators as California?
Let's look at this on a smaller level. Ever since SCOTUS deemed "one man, one vote" must apply to state legislatures (geographical representation is good enough for the US Senate but not the NYS Senate, apparently), rural areas have been dictated to by urban areas. Here in New York almost half (42%) of the population has no voice in Albany because NYS Government is dominated by legislators from NYC who have the votes to do whatever the hell they want. From what I understand it's a similiar story in other states with big cities -- California, Illinois, etc.
If that is the case, why just use being rural as a minority status worthy of having ones vote count more than others? How about we also give 1.5 votes to the disabled? African Americans? LGBT people? Left-handed people? People with type AB-negative blood? Gingers?
Because that's not in the Constitution. This is: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government
I personally speak with my representative at least once a year.
What's your point? I've met my representative twice in the last year but that doesn't change anything I said about gerrymandered districts or the fact that the overwhelming majority of them are re-elected, oftentimes by such lopsided margins that the election really is a formality.
I live in a district that is very republican...yet my representative is a Democrat, Jim Marshal.
Kudos for you. Most of us aren't that lucky. Here's a short list of reforms off the top of my head that I would like to see with regards to the House of Representatives:
1) No more gerrymandering. Districts should be drawn in a non-partisan way that ideally respects (within the limitation of having to have them mostly the same in population) existing political and/or geographical lines. My community is regularly sliced into pieces to add more Republicans to this district and more Democrats into that district. The net result of this is that we have no voice in Washington and serve only to further the agenda of the respective political parties.
2) Representatives or those running for the position shouldn't be allowed to accept donations from those who reside outside of their district.
3) End the primary system. I'm not sure yet what I'd replace it with but surely we can do better than a system that's tailor made for the most partisan members picking those who get to stand in the general election? Maybe just let everybody who can meet a certain threshold (the signatures of 10% of the total number of people who voted in the last election?) be on the ballot. Then provide for run-off elections if nobody gets 50%+1 or use instant run off voting.
4) End the centralization of power around the leadership and seniority system in the House. I should be able to fire my Representative without worrying about my community getting dicked over because the new guy has no seniority. Likewise, I shouldn't have to worry about whether or not something that's in the best interest of my community also has the approval of the leadership.
Is there a principled reason in this case to think that Iowans and other rural voters should receive votes that matter more even though they are numerically fewer?
Yes. Rural areas should not be held hostage by urban ones just because they happen to have more votes. This is the entire point of the US Senate and Electoral College.
If so, why does that principle not also apply to all sorts of other minorities, such as giving racial minorities their own set of votes in the electoral college?
Because the Electoral College wasn't structured to represent racial groups. It was structured to represent 50 (well 13 at the outset) sovereign states that voluntarily entered into a larger Republican government.
This is Paul having exacted an unfair deal from Peter as a price of being able to form the country, and Peter's descendants 50 generations later wanting out of the deal.
What protects the minority is NOT the president it is the House. Thoes are tiny districts which are constantly under review by it's constituents.
Roflmao! You owe me a new monitor for all the soda I just spit up on it.
You might have actually had a valid point if you were talking about State Assemblyman but Representatives? The average district had almost 650,000 people in it at the time of the 2000 census so that number is probably a low estimate today.
"Under review by their constituents"? Give me a fucking break. My Congressman is under review by the most partisan elements of his party because that's who he needs to win over to keep his seat. The primary is the real election in most gerrymandered districts. Short of indictment, the actual election is just a formality for most members of the House.
Get back to us when you actually know something about our political system and just how rigged it really is.
The FF's didn't really trust the people to do the right thing.
And you do? "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky animals and you know it." (Agent K, Men in Black)
I've seen nothing in my ten years of being involved in politics that convinces me this isn't true. The vast majority of people in this country just vote for the person in the same party as them. The vast majority of those who aren't in a political party just vote for the person with the most name recognition because "he's experienced and doing a good job". Why do you think politicians make such an effort to bring pork (preferably the kind with photo-ops and construction signs that have their name on it) back home?
Democracy sucks. It really shouldn't have been allowed to get beyond the House of Representatives and the Lower Houses of the State Legislatures.
And as a New Yorker, and therefore a resident of one of the two states which will receive any attention, I am all for this plan.
Yeah, let's get rid of the US Senate while we are at it. It's totally not fair that New Hampshire has the same number of Senators as we do. We should totally be able to dictate terms to them because we have more people.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. I can't wait until we have more and more Democracy.
That's all well and good, but there is a difference between holding your hand and preventing fraud (or other crimes). It's one thing to tell you to make your decisions in such-and-such a way, and quite another to let someone else trick people (including possibly you) into some folly.
Again, if I'm selling you something it's not my responsibility to make sure you can afford it or that it's the best deal possible for you. As long as I don't misrepresent my product (this mortgage is going to cost you $1000/mo forever when I know the rate is going to adjust in 3 years) I don't see what the problem is.
Do nothing? Well, that's no help! Didn't you hear me? I said, "public health crisis"!
That's exactly what you do. If it was a public health crisis caused by outside factors (let's say TB for the sake of the argument) then Governmental intervention would be called for. If my neighbor has TB and opts not to get treatment he's placing my family and the entire community at risk.
If my neighbor is a fatty because he lives off soda and big macs that's no threat to me or the community and thus no business of the Government. As I said I'm sick of the war on vice. It's this type of paternalistic thinking that has turned me off to liberalism. By all means educate people about the consequences of their decisions but you have no right to try and raise the cost of something I enjoy doing (be it drinking soda or beer, smoking pot or tobacco, skydiving, or any number of other activities that may be dangerous) just to encourage me to modify my behaviors.
Taxes, on the other hand, generate revenue (with which you can throw into the general fund to fund completely unrelated projects).
Fixed that for you.
It could only help, judging by the amazing frequency with which certain people still go around saying "Obama is a Muslim/Arab/Demon/Alien Overlord/What-Have-You".
Amazing. Now you want to regulate speech. I can say whatever I want about Mr. Obama as long as I'm not making threats on his life or person. If you don't like that then move somewhere else. Smart people realize that he isn't a Muslim -- you don't have the right to restrict my freedom of speech because of the 10% of us that are dumb enough to fall for internet rumors and innuendo.
It's too late for a TNG send-off. Sadly, the characters are too old for an action film, and the producers aren't bright enough to use them as strong supporting characters for a next-next-generation.
Well ST6 wasn't exactly an action film but yeah, the producers aren't that smart......:(
This is *really* off-topic, (so feel free to mod that way)
Nobody on/. will mod down a Star Trek discussion. Well, except the jackass who mods me down just be a wiseass now that I've said that;)
but practically the only thing that worries me about the upcoming ST reboot is that the previews make it look like a Nemesis rip-off. I *really* hope I'm wrong.
I saw the trailer during the Superbowl and dunno what to think. My first thought was "Oh great, another prequel" I guess exploring the aftermath of the Dominion War or giving a real sendoff to the TNG crowd would have been much to ask for.
What was wrong with Nemesis? It's not like it was a badly written ripoff of Wrath of Khan with better eye candy..... oh, n/m
Ya know what I don't understand? If they were going to do 'Wrath of Khan' with Romulans why didn't they pull something out of TNGs past? Sela would have been a good bet and would have had the added bonus of including Denise Crosby in the TNG sendoff. Instead they write some lame plot involving a clone and try to transplant Spock's sacrifice (complete with katra transfer) onto Data. WTF?
This guy sums up Nemesis in four pages. TNG deserved a better sendoff:(
XP was gold compared to ME. It wasn't gold compared to 2000 though. It introduced a few new features to balance out all the features that nobody wanted (activation)
Maybe offer a free downgrade to XP for all OEM Vista users that couldn't get the downgrade from the manufacturer?
You know what's sad? I've been around here long enough to remember when people were cursing XP and swearing that they'd never leave 2000. God help us all if I see the day where we are bemoaning the new release and swearing that we'll stay with Vista.
Slashdot Mirror
Who says I steal anything? I'm a law-abiding citizen who happens to be outraged at the prospect of having my private communications searched through without a court order.
New York State Penal Law:
250.05 Eavesdropping.
A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he unlawfully engages in wiretapping, mechanical overhearing of a conversation, or intercepting or accessing of an electronic communication.
Eavesdropping is a class E felony.
In theory, they could attack encryption with man-in-the-middle during the key exchange
In theory, isn't this (or shouldn't this) all be illegal under wiretapping laws anyway?
As a private citizen I don't have the right to start monitoring my neighbors phone calls (even if those calls are broadcast into my house without encryption) just because I suspect she is dealing drugs. What gives my ISP the right to start monitoring my packets just because they suspect I'm pirating something?
And in you Dingle quote he's not even bitching about something Pelosi did as speaker
Your reading comprehension continues to amaze me. Let me help you out. Read the following very slowly and then note how it was also included in my original comment:
Mr. Dingell survived. But like colleagues in both parties, he has chafed under Ms. Pelosi's speakership at the centralization of decision-making within the House leadership. "It started under Gingrich," he said, "and it continues today."
Batshit irrelevant to the idea of supposed Democratic group think
I didn't say all Democrats think the same. Clearly they don't. Nor do all Republicans. All I said was that views that conflict with the agenda of the leadership will be dead on arrival. Dingell's second quote (you know, the one you haven't mentioned) tends to support this view. You have yet to refute this point. Instead you mentioned a couple of Senators when the original discussion was about the House and ignored the second paragraph I quoted from the NYT article.
Are they serving the red or the orange kool aid today?
My point is that while raw democracy may be mob rule, this "watered down" system is in no way better.
According to you.
As for the Senate, is it really fair that 80% of the population controls only 20% of the vote
Yes, it's perfectly fair. It's the United States of America, not the United People of America. I say this as a resident of the third most populous state in the country.
The original Virginia Resolutions that the Constitution is based upon didn't think so.They had both houses of Congress proportionally represented.
And the smaller states wouldn't ratify it. Instead of the big states deciding to go it alone and leave the smaller states as independent nations, they decided to compromise. I see no reason why that compromise isn't still valid. If you intend on taking away the Senate (technically impossible but let's assume not for the sake of the argument) then I hope you'll let Vermont, New Hampshire, Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, etc, etc leave the Union without bloodshed.
If you don't intend on taking away the Senate then I'd really like to hear a justification for why the same model that the US Senate uses (geographical representation) can't also be applied to the Upper Houses of the individual State Legislatures.
It was written by a small slave holding Republic way before modern communication or the idea that everyone should be entitled to vote
I didn't question that everyone should be entitled to vote, I just question what they should be entitled to vote for. Personally I don't think the Senate should be elected by the people of the states. Given that there are other Governmental agencies with control over our lives (the FCC comes to mind but I could name dozens of other ones) that we don't get to vote for I don't really see what the problem is.
The persecution/martyr complex of America's rural poor would be funny if it didn't have such negative real world outgrowths. The poor suffering NY upstate rural voters, so ignored by the NYS government that doesn't have an electoral college or a geography based Senate, such that they're forced to accept $11 billion from the city of New York each year that they don't give back in benefits.
Don't give back in benefits eh? How much do you suppose that watershed is worth? And who said anything about money? I was thinking more along the lines of the city forcing upstate to adopt it's policies (random example: the statewide smoking ban wasn't particularly popular around here) or sending us your convicts.
there doesn't appear to me to be much more of a rational basis for apportioning votes based on geography
So let's get rid of the Senate then. That's the logical conclusion of your argument.
fail to point out how the current system is in in any way better.
The current system isn't much better because we've allowed ourselves to add more democracy at the expense of our republican origins. The first thing I would do is repeal the 17th amendment and return the election of Senators to the State Legislature instead of the people therein. My Senator should be looking out for the interests of my state as a whole and defending it against encroachments on it's sovereignty by the Federal Government. Instead he's busy trying to sell his existing political platform to 50%+1 of the sheep and doesn't really give a damn if his policies encroach on the state.
Is the idea "if we can somehow put all the wolves in the same state, and spread out the sheep over the other states, then the wolves will be totally powerless to have sheep for dinner, no matter how many of them there are"?
The idea is that raw democracy is little better than mob rule and the Founding Fathers originally set up a system that watered down the impact of raw democracy. For better or worse (I'm obviously arguing worse) we've gotten away from that.
What screwed up ecosystem has more predators than prey animals anyway?
Ask a black person living in the South during time of Jim Crow if there were more predators than pray animals.
How exactly does the Electoral College help us pick better presidents?
And you think a popular vote will help us pick "better" Presidents?
No argument here...how would you do it?
Ah, so Mr. "I talk to my Rep at least once a year, stop whining and make him answer to you" realizes the limits of the influence we have? You'd do it by blackmailing your State (the States draw the district lines) Legislature into doing it by voting their lazy asses out of office if they don't do it.
Minor disagreement, since representatives have direct control over comittees etc that could give undo influence to one district while no other district has any influence at all. This needs a lot of thought before you do it.
That's a fair point but I'm also tired of my Rep looking outside my district for funds. It allows him to be more partisan than he otherwise might be because he can seek the funds of the party loyalists everywhere as opposed to the party loyalists in my district.
Again, get rid of the electoral college. We will get many parties and a leader would have to negotiate a coalition. That would protect your district from reprisals.
I'm sorry but I don't want to see the electoral college go anywhere. The United States is a Republic, not a Democracy. The States retain their sovereignty.
No, my reasoning is that we shouldn't have a national vote for President and that the President should be selected by the individual states that still (theoretically) retain their sovereignty. If we have a national popular vote for President, then what's next? Should we abolish the US Senate because New Hampshire has the same number of Senators as California?
Let's look at this on a smaller level. Ever since SCOTUS deemed "one man, one vote" must apply to state legislatures (geographical representation is good enough for the US Senate but not the NYS Senate, apparently), rural areas have been dictated to by urban areas. Here in New York almost half (42%) of the population has no voice in Albany because NYS Government is dominated by legislators from NYC who have the votes to do whatever the hell they want. From what I understand it's a similiar story in other states with big cities -- California, Illinois, etc.
If that is the case, why just use being rural as a minority status worthy of having ones vote count more than others? How about we also give 1.5 votes to the disabled? African Americans? LGBT people? Left-handed people? People with type AB-negative blood? Gingers?
Because that's not in the Constitution. This is: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government
I personally speak with my representative at least once a year.
What's your point? I've met my representative twice in the last year but that doesn't change anything I said about gerrymandered districts or the fact that the overwhelming majority of them are re-elected, oftentimes by such lopsided margins that the election really is a formality.
I live in a district that is very republican...yet my representative is a Democrat, Jim Marshal.
Kudos for you. Most of us aren't that lucky. Here's a short list of reforms off the top of my head that I would like to see with regards to the House of Representatives:
1) No more gerrymandering. Districts should be drawn in a non-partisan way that ideally respects (within the limitation of having to have them mostly the same in population) existing political and/or geographical lines. My community is regularly sliced into pieces to add more Republicans to this district and more Democrats into that district. The net result of this is that we have no voice in Washington and serve only to further the agenda of the respective political parties.
2) Representatives or those running for the position shouldn't be allowed to accept donations from those who reside outside of their district.
3) End the primary system. I'm not sure yet what I'd replace it with but surely we can do better than a system that's tailor made for the most partisan members picking those who get to stand in the general election? Maybe just let everybody who can meet a certain threshold (the signatures of 10% of the total number of people who voted in the last election?) be on the ballot. Then provide for run-off elections if nobody gets 50%+1 or use instant run off voting.
4) End the centralization of power around the leadership and seniority system in the House. I should be able to fire my Representative without worrying about my community getting dicked over because the new guy has no seniority. Likewise, I shouldn't have to worry about whether or not something that's in the best interest of my community also has the approval of the leadership.
Is there a principled reason in this case to think that Iowans and other rural voters should receive votes that matter more even though they are numerically fewer?
Yes. Rural areas should not be held hostage by urban ones just because they happen to have more votes. This is the entire point of the US Senate and Electoral College.
If so, why does that principle not also apply to all sorts of other minorities, such as giving racial minorities their own set of votes in the electoral college?
Because the Electoral College wasn't structured to represent racial groups. It was structured to represent 50 (well 13 at the outset) sovereign states that voluntarily entered into a larger Republican government.
This is Paul having exacted an unfair deal from Peter as a price of being able to form the country, and Peter's descendants 50 generations later wanting out of the deal.
Fine, then let Paul out of the deal as well.
What protects the minority is NOT the president it is the House. Thoes are tiny districts which are constantly under review by it's constituents.
Roflmao! You owe me a new monitor for all the soda I just spit up on it.
You might have actually had a valid point if you were talking about State Assemblyman but Representatives? The average district had almost 650,000 people in it at the time of the 2000 census so that number is probably a low estimate today.
"Under review by their constituents"? Give me a fucking break. My Congressman is under review by the most partisan elements of his party because that's who he needs to win over to keep his seat. The primary is the real election in most gerrymandered districts. Short of indictment, the actual election is just a formality for most members of the House.
Get back to us when you actually know something about our political system and just how rigged it really is.
The FF's didn't really trust the people to do the right thing.
And you do? "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky animals and you know it." (Agent K, Men in Black)
I've seen nothing in my ten years of being involved in politics that convinces me this isn't true. The vast majority of people in this country just vote for the person in the same party as them. The vast majority of those who aren't in a political party just vote for the person with the most name recognition because "he's experienced and doing a good job". Why do you think politicians make such an effort to bring pork (preferably the kind with photo-ops and construction signs that have their name on it) back home?
Democracy sucks. It really shouldn't have been allowed to get beyond the House of Representatives and the Lower Houses of the State Legislatures.
And as a New Yorker, and therefore a resident of one of the two states which will receive any attention, I am all for this plan.
Yeah, let's get rid of the US Senate while we are at it. It's totally not fair that New Hampshire has the same number of Senators as we do. We should totally be able to dictate terms to them because we have more people.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. I can't wait until we have more and more Democracy.
That's all well and good, but there is a difference between holding your hand and preventing fraud (or other crimes). It's one thing to tell you to make your decisions in such-and-such a way, and quite another to let someone else trick people (including possibly you) into some folly.
Again, if I'm selling you something it's not my responsibility to make sure you can afford it or that it's the best deal possible for you. As long as I don't misrepresent my product (this mortgage is going to cost you $1000/mo forever when I know the rate is going to adjust in 3 years) I don't see what the problem is.
Do nothing? Well, that's no help! Didn't you hear me? I said, "public health crisis"!
That's exactly what you do. If it was a public health crisis caused by outside factors (let's say TB for the sake of the argument) then Governmental intervention would be called for. If my neighbor has TB and opts not to get treatment he's placing my family and the entire community at risk.
If my neighbor is a fatty because he lives off soda and big macs that's no threat to me or the community and thus no business of the Government. As I said I'm sick of the war on vice. It's this type of paternalistic thinking that has turned me off to liberalism. By all means educate people about the consequences of their decisions but you have no right to try and raise the cost of something I enjoy doing (be it drinking soda or beer, smoking pot or tobacco, skydiving, or any number of other activities that may be dangerous) just to encourage me to modify my behaviors.
Taxes, on the other hand, generate revenue (with which you can throw into the general fund to fund completely unrelated projects).
Fixed that for you.
It could only help, judging by the amazing frequency with which certain people still go around saying "Obama is a Muslim/Arab/Demon/Alien Overlord/What-Have-You".
Amazing. Now you want to regulate speech. I can say whatever I want about Mr. Obama as long as I'm not making threats on his life or person. If you don't like that then move somewhere else. Smart people realize that he isn't a Muslim -- you don't have the right to restrict my freedom of speech because of the 10% of us that are dumb enough to fall for internet rumors and innuendo.
Or, how about a movie about how he solves a diplomatic crisis without a single shot fired? There could still be plenty of space suspense
But then we don't get to hear Worf's pained cries of "shields down to X percent" while consoles explode and random red-shirts bite the dust.
As a random aside and while I'm thinking about exploding consoles, hasn't anybody in the Star Trek universe ever heard of a circuit breaker? ;)
It's too late for a TNG send-off. Sadly, the characters are too old for an action film, and the producers aren't bright enough to use them as strong supporting characters for a next-next-generation.
Well ST6 wasn't exactly an action film but yeah, the producers aren't that smart...... :(
Keep drinking the kool aid and thinking your political party of choice isn't the same as the other one :)
This is *really* off-topic, (so feel free to mod that way)
Nobody on /. will mod down a Star Trek discussion. Well, except the jackass who mods me down just be a wiseass now that I've said that ;)
but practically the only thing that worries me about the upcoming ST reboot is that the previews make it look like a Nemesis rip-off. I *really* hope I'm wrong.
I saw the trailer during the Superbowl and dunno what to think. My first thought was "Oh great, another prequel" I guess exploring the aftermath of the Dominion War or giving a real sendoff to the TNG crowd would have been much to ask for.
What was wrong with Nemesis? It's not like it was a badly written ripoff of Wrath of Khan with better eye candy..... oh, n/m
Ya know what I don't understand? If they were going to do 'Wrath of Khan' with Romulans why didn't they pull something out of TNGs past? Sela would have been a good bet and would have had the added bonus of including Denise Crosby in the TNG sendoff. Instead they write some lame plot involving a clone and try to transplant Spock's sacrifice (complete with katra transfer) onto Data. WTF?
This guy sums up Nemesis in four pages. TNG deserved a better sendoff :(
XP was gold compared to ME. It wasn't gold compared to 2000 though. It introduced a few new features to balance out all the features that nobody wanted (activation)
Maybe offer a free downgrade to XP for all OEM Vista users that couldn't get the downgrade from the manufacturer?
You know what's sad? I've been around here long enough to remember when people were cursing XP and swearing that they'd never leave 2000. God help us all if I see the day where we are bemoaning the new release and swearing that we'll stay with Vista.
That's a pretty amusing first post you've got there but the signature alone says that you deserve a +5 funny ;) I only wish I had mod points :P