I think our best bet is to keep Republicans out of any office higher than local dogcatcher.
That would result in Democrats being in charge of both chambers of Congress and the Presidency and, eventually, the Supreme Court. There are two reasons the Republicans have managed to rise to such heights of corruption: (1) Previous corruptions ("If I have seen further, it's because I have stood on the shoulders of [demons]") and (2) Complete control of all branches of government. We can't eliminate #1 (but we can somewhat mitigate it by not tolerating "b-b-but Bush" comments in the future), but we can and should avoid #2.
Granted, the Bush administration has brought a special form of evil to our government, but I do not believe that this is necessarily indicative of Republicans. There are good Republicans - e.g., David Iglesias!
perjury in a civil suit being brought against Bill Clinton
Do you not understand that the perjury was a coverup? And in this case, no one is claiming that the original BJ was a crime. It was the coverup (i.e., perjury) that was a crime. In this case, the original act might have been a crime (obstruction of justice, violation of the civil rights act), but perjury after the fact definitely would be a crime. The main thing protecting them from perjury is that most key Republicans avoid testifying under oath because we should implicitly trust them. Yeah, right.
This rings false to me -- the military supports the republicans in a MUCH higher percentage than the average citizen.
I've heard this from Republican (and Fox) supporters and can believe this might be true; however while African American soldiers might vote more Republican than African American non-soldiers, I doubt that African American soldiers vote Republican more than the average citizen. That's why they (allegedly) specifically targeted African American soldiers. If this allegation is true, it is a specific violation of the Constitution.
The fact that Tom Cruise played him in a movie is so incredibly irrelevant that I can't believe it was mentioned.
I think the only relevance was that it helped you to know who David Iglesias was by reminding you of the movie A Few Good Men. I agree that they harped on that a bit too much.
Did the republicans only challenge likely democrats? Well DUH! They're not going to challenge people who are likely to vote for them. Same thing for EITHER party. I don't see this as indications of fraud either.
Not that I disagree that Democrats do the same thing (in different ways), I do disagree with this not being fraud.
CRITICAL REVIEW MAKES THINGS BETTER
No, it doesn't. That's why you'll never see me criticize anything.;)
That is at least plausible. I'm currently only half-way through the FA. It would be nice if they included that near the top, because I've been reading the article with an extremely large grain of salt as opposed to the more moderately sized grain of salt I'd use if I had been given a plausible mechanism up front for the accidental sending of 500 e-mails.
They wound up Greg Palast's office - at least if I'm reading that correctly. It would actually be easier to believe if it did show up at David Iglesias's office, since at least he used to be considered a "good Republican" (until he proved himself to be more good than Republican).
Apparently the Rove team misaddressed their emails, and late one night they all ended up in our inboxes in our offices in New York City.
I'd like at least a clue of how such a gigantic "oops" could have happened. Is there a similarity with their e-mail address and someone else's? Perhaps a disgruntled GOP member didn't so much misaddress the e-mails?
That said, if you take this at face value, there's a plus and a minus here for Republicans. Plus: there are honest, ethical Republicans out there such as David Iglesias. Minus: They're not the ones currently running the show.
I was saying that "attempted murder" is a valid crime to have on the books because you can't guarantee that the attempt will necessarily break any other laws, and at the same time you don't want to wait until the murder is actually successful. That said, as others have pointed out, there are a lot of ways to distinguish "attempted murder" from "attempted turkey carving", whereas it is quite difficult if not impossible in most situations to distinguish "attempted copyright infringement" from "attempted fair use".
Despite my first sentence, my point had nothing to do with gun control, either pro or con.
Surely shooting a gun at someone with intent to kill is a crime..?
Guns don't kill people - people kill people. But seriously, attempted murder does not have to involve a gun. What would you charge someone with who came at you with a butcher knife, but was tackled (by the police, for example) prior to actually even touching you? If he hadn't actually done anything yet, what gave the police the authority to tackle him?
My first guess was because of the large number of people here who are misspelling his last name (Geller) as Gellar. However, even if you use the correct spelling, that search turns up Slashdot as the second (or third) hit. Using the incorrect spelling now puts Slashdot on the top of the list. Behold the power of Slashdot...
/Insert something about Slashdot granting you magical powers...
It's easy to poke fun at the Democrats on this (and I'm not claiming that's what you're doing), but the facts are much more prosaic. When the Republican controlled Florida state legislature and the Republican Florida governor first considered moving the primaries up to make their state more relevant (and, hence, other states less relevant) there was talk that both the RNC and the DNC might not support this, but that the RNC probably would feel compelled to since it was done primarily by Republicans.
Now that it appears to have moved beyond the consideration phase, the Democratic party is considering not having it count. IIRC, there is precedence for this. Also, for the record, (well) before the Florida legislature started considering this, both the RNC and DNC had a policy against such an early primary. The RNC is bending (i.e., breaking) that policy (I assume), and the DNC has not yet said if they will or not. For the record, if it was a Democratic legislature instead of a Republican legislature, I am quite certain that all roles would be reversed (including the early waffling).
"I feel something hilarious has happened. As if 13,256,278,887,989,457,651,018,865,901,401,704,640 geeks cried out in laughter, and were never silenced."
So, if they wouldn't let you sneak the decimal version by them, I wonder if they would object to the prime factorization:
2^6 x 5 x 19 x 12,043 x 216,493 x 836,256,503,069,278,983,442,067
While I agree that "whatever inappropriateness they had gotten up to" might require harsher penalties, if they have been warned not to use a proxy, then using a proxy is sufficient cause for them to receive an appropriate (read: not a fricking 3-month suspension) punishment. You aren't allowed to talk in class (hey! my free speech is being suppressed!), and if they have a rule that you can't use proxies on a school computer and/or on school grounds, I see nothing wrong with that. Granted, if they're using that rule as an excuse not to have better security in place, they're being stupid - but that doesn't excuse the kid from breaking the rule (again, if the rule has been clearly explained).
College would be a slightly different story, but only slightly. If you're using the college/university network, then they have the right to set up limitations on that use. If you break those rules, then you shouldn't be surprised if your rights to use that network are revoked - even if that makes your life more difficult because all of your professors put their assignments on the web, etc. (There are always work-arounds and/or exceptions.)
As far as rule breaking, it's too close to a thought crime for me to agree with it. Either throttle it down intelligently, or accept that people will find things you may find objectionable.
I agree that the 3 month suspension punishment was over the top. But to argue (as you did earlier) that kids should be encouraged for this creative behavior, I vehemently disagree. If they did not get a warning (including a school-wide warning, as long as it was focused on the proxy issue and not generic), then I think that a warning would have been the appropriate response. If they did get a warning, then a 1-day in-school suspension (or detention) would probably have been a reasonable response.
To argue for no response whatsoever, however, seems irresponsible.
Being able to support yourself in retirement
on
Longevity Gene Found
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Living longer would mean you need more money to support yourself in retirement, or that you need to delay retiring. The second point depends on what health state (and mental state) you're in at an older age.
I'm already planning for retirement such that I will be able to live off the interest alone, and in such a way that I won't be living off all the interest (so that the interest will grow with cost-of-living adjustments). That way, it won't matter how long I live past retirement - the longer I live, the more money I will have to live off of. This of course is based on more than one assumption:
I assume that I will continue to get at least 8% annual return on my investments (on average).
I assume that COLAs will be no more than 2% per annum - or, more specifically, that the difference between my ROI and COLAs will be at least 6%.
I assume that my insurance will cover any drastic expenses that arise.
In reality, any one of these assumptions could be violated, of course.
The first thing I think of when you mention fructose is fruit - a healthy source of fructose. Of course, most people probably get their fructose from high fructose corn syrup - not so healthy. I'm just pointing out that although we probably consume too much fructose, you don't want to avoid fruit in an effort to cut fructose out of your diet altogether - just try to avoid all products that contain high fructose corn syrup. Combine that with avoiding all products that contain partially hydrogenated vegetable oil and trans-fats (the two are highly correlated but not 1:1), and you'll not only be healthier, you'll feel and look healthier too! Also, if you're a typical consumer, you'll have cut out many foods from your diet, so you're likely to lose weight to boot.
Perhaps, but you might be surprised at how many 0 byte size files there are. They now take up 8x as much space. A reasonable trade-off, but not completely undebatable.
Slashdot Mirror
That would result in Democrats being in charge of both chambers of Congress and the Presidency and, eventually, the Supreme Court. There are two reasons the Republicans have managed to rise to such heights of corruption: (1) Previous corruptions ("If I have seen further, it's because I have stood on the shoulders of [demons]") and (2) Complete control of all branches of government. We can't eliminate #1 (but we can somewhat mitigate it by not tolerating "b-b-but Bush" comments in the future), but we can and should avoid #2.
Granted, the Bush administration has brought a special form of evil to our government, but I do not believe that this is necessarily indicative of Republicans. There are good Republicans - e.g., David Iglesias!
That is at least plausible. I'm currently only half-way through the FA. It would be nice if they included that near the top, because I've been reading the article with an extremely large grain of salt as opposed to the more moderately sized grain of salt I'd use if I had been given a plausible mechanism up front for the accidental sending of 500 e-mails.
They wound up Greg Palast's office - at least if I'm reading that correctly. It would actually be easier to believe if it did show up at David Iglesias's office, since at least he used to be considered a "good Republican" (until he proved himself to be more good than Republican).
I find the following a little too convenient:
I'd like at least a clue of how such a gigantic "oops" could have happened. Is there a similarity with their e-mail address and someone else's? Perhaps a disgruntled GOP member didn't so much misaddress the e-mails?That said, if you take this at face value, there's a plus and a minus here for Republicans. Plus: there are honest, ethical Republicans out there such as David Iglesias. Minus: They're not the ones currently running the show.
I was saying that "attempted murder" is a valid crime to have on the books because you can't guarantee that the attempt will necessarily break any other laws, and at the same time you don't want to wait until the murder is actually successful. That said, as others have pointed out, there are a lot of ways to distinguish "attempted murder" from "attempted turkey carving", whereas it is quite difficult if not impossible in most situations to distinguish "attempted copyright infringement" from "attempted fair use".
Despite my first sentence, my point had nothing to do with gun control, either pro or con.
Surely shooting a gun at someone with intent to kill is a crime..?
Guns don't kill people - people kill people. But seriously, attempted murder does not have to involve a gun. What would you charge someone with who came at you with a butcher knife, but was tackled (by the police, for example) prior to actually even touching you? If he hadn't actually done anything yet, what gave the police the authority to tackle him?He says: "Attempted Murder?"
/Assuming it was subconscious.
The first thing that comes to your mind: "Alberto Gonzales"
Hmmm. I don't think you need any more help connecting the dots to your subconscious...
win/win ;)
My first guess was because of the large number of people here who are misspelling his last name (Geller) as Gellar. However, even if you use the correct spelling, that search turns up Slashdot as the second (or third) hit. Using the incorrect spelling now puts Slashdot on the top of the list. Behold the power of Slashdot...
It's easy to poke fun at the Democrats on this (and I'm not claiming that's what you're doing), but the facts are much more prosaic. When the Republican controlled Florida state legislature and the Republican Florida governor first considered moving the primaries up to make their state more relevant (and, hence, other states less relevant) there was talk that both the RNC and the DNC might not support this, but that the RNC probably would feel compelled to since it was done primarily by Republicans.
Now that it appears to have moved beyond the consideration phase, the Democratic party is considering not having it count. IIRC, there is precedence for this. Also, for the record, (well) before the Florida legislature started considering this, both the RNC and DNC had a policy against such an early primary. The RNC is bending (i.e., breaking) that policy (I assume), and the DNC has not yet said if they will or not. For the record, if it was a Democratic legislature instead of a Republican legislature, I am quite certain that all roles would be reversed (including the early waffling).
2^6 x 5 x 19 x 12,043 x 216,493 x 836,256,503,069,278,983,442,067
What are you some sort of dissident or something?
You're absolutely right. This is such a ludicrous punishment that I don't know why my own cynicism didn't kick in.
While I agree that "whatever inappropriateness they had gotten up to" might require harsher penalties, if they have been warned not to use a proxy, then using a proxy is sufficient cause for them to receive an appropriate (read: not a fricking 3-month suspension) punishment. You aren't allowed to talk in class (hey! my free speech is being suppressed!), and if they have a rule that you can't use proxies on a school computer and/or on school grounds, I see nothing wrong with that. Granted, if they're using that rule as an excuse not to have better security in place, they're being stupid - but that doesn't excuse the kid from breaking the rule (again, if the rule has been clearly explained).
College would be a slightly different story, but only slightly. If you're using the college/university network, then they have the right to set up limitations on that use. If you break those rules, then you shouldn't be surprised if your rights to use that network are revoked - even if that makes your life more difficult because all of your professors put their assignments on the web, etc. (There are always work-arounds and/or exceptions.)
I agree that the 3 month suspension punishment was over the top. But to argue (as you did earlier) that kids should be encouraged for this creative behavior, I vehemently disagree. If they did not get a warning (including a school-wide warning, as long as it was focused on the proxy issue and not generic), then I think that a warning would have been the appropriate response. If they did get a warning, then a 1-day in-school suspension (or detention) would probably have been a reasonable response.
To argue for no response whatsoever, however, seems irresponsible.
- I assume that I will continue to get at least 8% annual return on my investments (on average).
- I assume that COLAs will be no more than 2% per annum - or, more specifically, that the difference between my ROI and COLAs will be at least 6%.
- I assume that my insurance will cover any drastic expenses that arise.
In reality, any one of these assumptions could be violated, of course.The first thing I think of when you mention fructose is fruit - a healthy source of fructose. Of course, most people probably get their fructose from high fructose corn syrup - not so healthy. I'm just pointing out that although we probably consume too much fructose, you don't want to avoid fruit in an effort to cut fructose out of your diet altogether - just try to avoid all products that contain high fructose corn syrup. Combine that with avoiding all products that contain partially hydrogenated vegetable oil and trans-fats (the two are highly correlated but not 1:1), and you'll not only be healthier, you'll feel and look healthier too! Also, if you're a typical consumer, you'll have cut out many foods from your diet, so you're likely to lose weight to boot.
42-65-65-72c -20-6d-6d-6d-6d-2c-20-62-65-65-72-2e
or
42-65-65-72-2c-20-62-65-65-72-2c-20-62-65-65-72-2
You are correct. I just looked at one of my 0-byte files and found that it occupied 0 blocks. I guess I'm a little out of touch with file systems.
As others have pointed out, most file systems already allocate 4K per block.
So, Google was right all along! I feel so bad for doubting...
It smells kind of like a new meme...