So, why can't those sites be eddieagle.com or donttouchmethere.net?
Re:Book review or product marketing?
on
CMS Made Simple 1.6
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I got that idea as well. Having used CMSMS quite a bit, I'll say this: It is a solid system, but the core devs can be assholes. Very knowledgeable assholes, who write excellent code, but assholes nonetheless.
The lack of documentation is astounding, and is why I left to write my own system in CodeIgniter, then on to Django. I read all available documentation, couldnt' figure out an issue, and asked in the IRC channel. I was told to read the documentation. I replied that I did, and it wasn't there -- their reply? "Then read the code comments. We're busy."
I don't deny that the "interim damage" is real, but I don't see any data that supports the assumption that regulation reduces this damage.
I would also point out that in the case of Thalidomide, it was believed that it wasn't possible for the drug to cross from mother to child. The companies did not test for it because it wasn't anticipated, not because they simply decided not to.
Ford's Pinto fiasco was bad PR, but there was nothing wrong with the decision per se. It always comes down to whether or not the increased cost was worth the increased safety. Does your car have a four-point restraint system? No? How about a titanium alloy driver cage to better protect the integrity of the passenger area during crashes? That would surely improve the safety of the car, at the cost of profitability. Where does it end?
Of your examples, none are "products of a totally free and unregulated market".
Thalidomide was produced before we knew drugs impacted the unborn. No amount of regulation would have prevented that.
The Pinto was actually at one point a very modern car, with a bladder fuel tank and lots of modern safety measures, but most of that was cut after the DOT announced changes to regulations after the 1973 oil crisis. Even so, the Pinto was a perfectly fine vehicle except for an engineering mistake on the rear differential. I drove a Pinto in high school for a couple of years.
Lead paint, contaminated pet food, and drywall... You do realize that those things are produced and exported by Communist China, right? Are you really holding that up as the pinnacle of free market capitalism?
I think your last point is closest to the truth - I'm only 26, but in my experience, politicians in America pick a party because having that letter next to your name gives you a built-in voting base.
You have a bunch of individual politicians, with their own platforms, and they just keep their mouths shut where they disagree with the party.
Are you suggesting that Democrats didn't go nuts with Bush hate, or that Republicans didn't go nuts with Clinton hate?
It isn't new.
I'm generally of the opinion that if you truly believe the other party is completely evil, and your party is perfect, you're delusional. Both parties are largely filled with corrupt politicians who want to line their pockets, and cater to special interest groups. Both parties overspend and pass mammoth bills filled with crazy riders. Both parties have compromised personal liberty to appease knee-jerk reactions. Both parties have helped build a larger federal government.
They flip-flop on policy so much, it is hard to keep track. For instance, when McCain proposed a cap-and-trade system, every Republican loved it, and every Democrat hated it. When Pelosi proposed a cap-and-trade system, ever Republican hated it, and every Democrat loved it. Which is it?
When McCain was pushing for oil drilling, Pelosi threatened to drill in people's heads because it was such a stupid idea. When Obama suggested oil drilling, Pelosi said it was a great idea.
Look at major players in the Liberal/Democrat party like Biden and Reid. Both pushed for warrantless wiretapping very early, even though it is supposedly against the common Democrat platform. Biden was pushing for it after Oklahoma City, and bragged about it during the debates.
Look at Reid's Wikipedia page. It sure reads like a Conservative platform on many levels. And yet he is one of the highest ranking Liberals. The truth is both parties are far more similar than anyone wants to admit.
Reid is a great example -- I am constantly defending him in the firearms community, as he has always been a friend to gun owners. He's a liberal in many regards, and there are lots of valid issues that I take with his voting record - but that isn't one of them.
Both parties have gotten to the point where they don't have a coherent platform anymore. The GOP is "anti-Democrat" and the Democrats are "anti-GOP". This has allowed those with their own agendas to rise to power, such as Obama, Pelosi, Palin, Huckabee, etc.
I don't think that strategy will work real well these days - it depends on people being willing to adopt your proprietary extensions, and with all the focus on standards compliance in today's world, there will be few who do.
I am not aware of any state where it is against the law to have sex as a minor. Citation please.
No one is protesting in the streets about arresting minors in possession of alcohol, are they? How about arrests on the basis of possession of a controlled substance?
A criminal is someone who has committed a crime. It is a crime to cross the US border outside of designated checkpoints in most circumstances. It is certainly a crime to obtain employment as a foreign national not authorized to be in the US.
They are criminals.
Cox recently "messed up" and redirected Google search traffic from Firefox's search toolbar - not the Awesomebar. They corrected the issue, but I seriously doubt that it was by mistake. I think it was a trial balloon.
In that light, I am forced to fall back on my own anecdotal evidence, which isn't data.
I'd be interested to see an unbiased, scientific poll - I suspect that a majority of Hispanic citizens would support the law - but if you throw out the Rasmussen poll, I have no data either way.
There is the "natural born citizen" requirement of the Presidency, so citizenship was certainly acknowledged at the time of the Founding. It was as simple as "1) Move here 2) Congrats, you're a citizen!", but it existed.
The Constitution itself, sans the amendments, does not speak to the rights of individuals, but of limits to the power of the federal and state governments. The Bill of Rights, passed in conjunction with the Constitution, offer defined protections to the people because it was (rightfully) believed that the federal government would not stay within the guideline set forth in the document. The protections in the Bill of Rights extend to "the people", which obviously extends to everyone within the jurisdiction of the US.
One of those amendment states that [no person shall] "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". That is exactly what this law is doing - establishing a legal process by which non-citizens may be questioned, detained, and potentially deported or incarcerated.
No, it says that identification is a primary defense - as in, you provide it, and you cannot be charged with this statute.
There are other methods of determining citizenship. They may take a little longer, but you are within your rights to request them.
My ancestors killed no one on this continent.
Further, the children of illegals today are (incorrectly, IMO) classified as American citizens.
We don't deny healthcare to anyone - we just haven't, to this point, forced doctors to provide it for free.
He's showing that there is a segment of the US populace who are getting fed up with the problem, and are willing to put more and more on the line to fix it. He's being a dick, but which is worse: someone confiscating a significant portion of your income and giving it to someone whose very presence here is a crime, or "being a dick"?
I understand the left's call for civility - but I look around, and I see a group of people who believe we are at the limits of civil discourse, and rapidly approaching incivility. Instead of calling for them to stop talking about it, the left would do well to stop and think for a moment on what's making them so upset.
First, your argument in your imaginary scenario is a strawman.
Second, Arizona isn't deporting anyone. Arizona is verifying legal status - I would assume that would constitute a call to ICE, who would tell them that you are present under stay. If for some screwed up reason Arizona couldn't find you had proof of legal residency, they would remand you into the custody of ICE - who would then verify your legal residency and release you.
No one is going to be deported because they couldn't get their green card in time.
Slashdot Mirror
So, why can't those sites be eddieagle.com or donttouchmethere.net?
I got that idea as well. Having used CMSMS quite a bit, I'll say this: It is a solid system, but the core devs can be assholes. Very knowledgeable assholes, who write excellent code, but assholes nonetheless.
The lack of documentation is astounding, and is why I left to write my own system in CodeIgniter, then on to Django. I read all available documentation, couldnt' figure out an issue, and asked in the IRC channel. I was told to read the documentation. I replied that I did, and it wasn't there -- their reply? "Then read the code comments. We're busy."
Screw that.
The Glock 7 isn't mythical - you've just never seen one. They cost more than you make in a month, after all.
The liberties they take with firearms, firearms law, ballistics, and forensics are too distracting for me to notice their computer issues.
I don't deny that the "interim damage" is real, but I don't see any data that supports the assumption that regulation reduces this damage.
I would also point out that in the case of Thalidomide, it was believed that it wasn't possible for the drug to cross from mother to child. The companies did not test for it because it wasn't anticipated, not because they simply decided not to.
Ford's Pinto fiasco was bad PR, but there was nothing wrong with the decision per se. It always comes down to whether or not the increased cost was worth the increased safety. Does your car have a four-point restraint system? No? How about a titanium alloy driver cage to better protect the integrity of the passenger area during crashes? That would surely improve the safety of the car, at the cost of profitability. Where does it end?
Damn it, I forgot I had HTML editing turned on :( Sorry for the impenetrable wall of text.
Of your examples, none are "products of a totally free and unregulated market". Thalidomide was produced before we knew drugs impacted the unborn. No amount of regulation would have prevented that. The Pinto was actually at one point a very modern car, with a bladder fuel tank and lots of modern safety measures, but most of that was cut after the DOT announced changes to regulations after the 1973 oil crisis. Even so, the Pinto was a perfectly fine vehicle except for an engineering mistake on the rear differential. I drove a Pinto in high school for a couple of years. Lead paint, contaminated pet food, and drywall... You do realize that those things are produced and exported by Communist China, right? Are you really holding that up as the pinnacle of free market capitalism?
My time as an adult severely limits my personal perspective here.
I think your last point is closest to the truth - I'm only 26, but in my experience, politicians in America pick a party because having that letter next to your name gives you a built-in voting base.
You have a bunch of individual politicians, with their own platforms, and they just keep their mouths shut where they disagree with the party.
Are you suggesting that Democrats didn't go nuts with Bush hate, or that Republicans didn't go nuts with Clinton hate?
It isn't new.
I'm generally of the opinion that if you truly believe the other party is completely evil, and your party is perfect, you're delusional. Both parties are largely filled with corrupt politicians who want to line their pockets, and cater to special interest groups. Both parties overspend and pass mammoth bills filled with crazy riders. Both parties have compromised personal liberty to appease knee-jerk reactions. Both parties have helped build a larger federal government.
They flip-flop on policy so much, it is hard to keep track. For instance, when McCain proposed a cap-and-trade system, every Republican loved it, and every Democrat hated it. When Pelosi proposed a cap-and-trade system, ever Republican hated it, and every Democrat loved it. Which is it?
When McCain was pushing for oil drilling, Pelosi threatened to drill in people's heads because it was such a stupid idea. When Obama suggested oil drilling, Pelosi said it was a great idea.
Look at major players in the Liberal/Democrat party like Biden and Reid. Both pushed for warrantless wiretapping very early, even though it is supposedly against the common Democrat platform. Biden was pushing for it after Oklahoma City, and bragged about it during the debates.
Look at Reid's Wikipedia page. It sure reads like a Conservative platform on many levels. And yet he is one of the highest ranking Liberals. The truth is both parties are far more similar than anyone wants to admit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid
Reid is a great example -- I am constantly defending him in the firearms community, as he has always been a friend to gun owners. He's a liberal in many regards, and there are lots of valid issues that I take with his voting record - but that isn't one of them.
Both parties have gotten to the point where they don't have a coherent platform anymore. The GOP is "anti-Democrat" and the Democrats are "anti-GOP". This has allowed those with their own agendas to rise to power, such as Obama, Pelosi, Palin, Huckabee, etc.
TY for the video link - nothing really new to me, but it was interesting to see it put together in one place.
I don't think that strategy will work real well these days - it depends on people being willing to adopt your proprietary extensions, and with all the focus on standards compliance in today's world, there will be few who do.
Bah - I switched to HTML posting, and forgot to add paragraph tags. My apologies for the Great Wall of Text.
I am not aware of any state where it is against the law to have sex as a minor. Citation please. No one is protesting in the streets about arresting minors in possession of alcohol, are they? How about arrests on the basis of possession of a controlled substance? A criminal is someone who has committed a crime. It is a crime to cross the US border outside of designated checkpoints in most circumstances. It is certainly a crime to obtain employment as a foreign national not authorized to be in the US. They are criminals.
Who are criminals.
Cox recently "messed up" and redirected Google search traffic from Firefox's search toolbar - not the Awesomebar. They corrected the issue, but I seriously doubt that it was by mistake. I think it was a trial balloon.
In that light, I am forced to fall back on my own anecdotal evidence, which isn't data. I'd be interested to see an unbiased, scientific poll - I suspect that a majority of Hispanic citizens would support the law - but if you throw out the Rasmussen poll, I have no data either way.
If I was stopped for a busted tail light, I would presume that I had a driver's license, which means I could not be charged with this crime.
There is the "natural born citizen" requirement of the Presidency, so citizenship was certainly acknowledged at the time of the Founding. It was as simple as "1) Move here 2) Congrats, you're a citizen!", but it existed.
The Constitution itself, sans the amendments, does not speak to the rights of individuals, but of limits to the power of the federal and state governments. The Bill of Rights, passed in conjunction with the Constitution, offer defined protections to the people because it was (rightfully) believed that the federal government would not stay within the guideline set forth in the document. The protections in the Bill of Rights extend to "the people", which obviously extends to everyone within the jurisdiction of the US.
One of those amendment states that [no person shall] "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". That is exactly what this law is doing - establishing a legal process by which non-citizens may be questioned, detained, and potentially deported or incarcerated.
No, it says that identification is a primary defense - as in, you provide it, and you cannot be charged with this statute. There are other methods of determining citizenship. They may take a little longer, but you are within your rights to request them.
My ancestors killed no one on this continent. Further, the children of illegals today are (incorrectly, IMO) classified as American citizens. We don't deny healthcare to anyone - we just haven't, to this point, forced doctors to provide it for free.
He's showing that there is a segment of the US populace who are getting fed up with the problem, and are willing to put more and more on the line to fix it. He's being a dick, but which is worse: someone confiscating a significant portion of your income and giving it to someone whose very presence here is a crime, or "being a dick"?
I understand the left's call for civility - but I look around, and I see a group of people who believe we are at the limits of civil discourse, and rapidly approaching incivility. Instead of calling for them to stop talking about it, the left would do well to stop and think for a moment on what's making them so upset.
First, your argument in your imaginary scenario is a strawman.
Second, Arizona isn't deporting anyone. Arizona is verifying legal status - I would assume that would constitute a call to ICE, who would tell them that you are present under stay. If for some screwed up reason Arizona couldn't find you had proof of legal residency, they would remand you into the custody of ICE - who would then verify your legal residency and release you.
No one is going to be deported because they couldn't get their green card in time.
No, he's talking about how a legal alien can be here legally and not have a visa or official documentation. They still have a means to verify status.