With enough money it would be possible for one canidate to effectively mute another.
More speech by one party doesn't cause less speech by the other. After all, you could say the same thing about hard work: if candidate A gets 1000 volunteers to go knock on doors and candidate B only gets 1, well then candidate B is "effectively muted" by not having as many volunteers. Shall we then make it a crime to volunteer for campaigns? In any case, this position is inconsistent with your argument that individuals should be free to spend their own money as much as they want - that certainly does not result in equal amounts of election speech. By adopting equality of outcome as a criteria for fair elections, you end up having to impose all sorts of Harrison Bergeron-esque handicaps.
I found the fact that he didn't think Japanese players could handle the scenario of terrorist/counterterrorist, especially if the terrorists won. Is this some kind of crude stereotype? are Japanese hypersensitive about this issue specifically? Or just in general? I don't know, but I would speculate they're also pretty sensitive about WWII games, no? More or less so than the Germans?
Well correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Kerberos designed to be extendable? In other words, isn't the ability to extend the standard part of the standard itself?
Why not? Why shouldn't I, as an INDIVIDUAL, be able to voluntarily take orders from whoever I want? If I have a pot of money, what business is it of the government whether I listen to how my financial planner tells me to spend it, how moveon.org tells me to spend it, or how the DNC tells me to spend it?
No, think about it. You dial the number, then press "SEND". The routing of your call does not actually take place until the number has been completely dialed and the "SEND" button pressed. What you say is true of POTS with a dial tone, though.
All your ideas are okay under the current campaign finance rules.
No, they're not all okay, that's what McCain Feingold is all about! For example, you can make som kinds of independent expenditures (so-called "soft money"), but you can't coordinate with the campaign while doing so. Also, there are now limits to what you can do within a certain time period of the election, and so on.
But to give unlimited contributions directly to a presidental canidate or political party is wrong.
There are already laws that govern how much you can donate directly to a campaign (it's not a whole lot.) As for donations to the party organizations, why should giving money to them be different than giving money to any other private organization?
This is not really about giving cash to candidates. Even under your scenario: suppose all candidates are funded equally from a public pool. I, a private citizen, wish to dedicate my time and my checking account to persuading as many people as possible that candidate X is the best choice. Under your proposed system, is this permissible? Does it change if I encourage others to join me? If I encourage others to help me by volunteering? Help me with cash donations? What if I voluntarily do the bidding of the campaign manager? What if I try to guess what the campaign manager wants, and do it? What if I take money from the campaign?
At a time when their status quo has lead them to a debacle with Windows development, all Ballmer can think of is lobbing bombs blindly at the enemy.
He was asked a direct question about it. What should he have done? Lied? Run away? I suppose he could have just said "no comment," but all things considered, don't we want more transparency, not less?
I totally agree you should be able to buy a Windows operating system without getting the implied Microsoft bundled applications, which keep causing secutiry issues for people who don't otherwise know better.
Isn't this why they have the Windows "N" versions?
It's not that hard to understand the summary. You have "Algorithmic", "Political", and "Media." Understanding the summary is simply a matter of context-mapping these modal figuratives to a linear grammar that can be gleaned from the summary domain. Each feature, then, is rotated to the cerebral context, where it it becomes internalized as a distinctive functional notion. Summarizing, then, we assume that an important property of these three types of EC is not quite equivalent to irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. For one thing, this selectionally introduced contextual feature cannot be arbitrary in the traditional practice of grammarians. We will bring evidence in favor of the following thesis: the notion of level of grammaticalness is to be regarded as nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory. Clearly, the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction can be defined in such a way as to impose a stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories. In the discussion of resumptive pronouns following the headline, the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial does not readily tolerate a parasitic gap construction, thus it is perfectly clear.
it's the itunes music service which deliver music to ipods
not the apple music service delivering to the apple pod.
in general references are made to mac's not even apple mac's
So I suppose to download music I would go to www.itunes.com, righ? Hmmmm, why look at that, it redirects to www.apple.com. Why, look at the titlebar! "Apple - iPod + iTunes!" No Apple branding there, no siree!
You're thinking of Steve Ballmer's Lonely Developers Club Band, which starts with:
Steve Ballmer's Lonely Developers Club Band With A Little Help From My Friends in the Justice Department Windows in the Sky With MS Hearts Getting Better For Our Next Release Fixing a (Security) Hole She's Leaving Microsoft Being For the Benefit of Mr. Gates Lock-in You, Lock-out You Service Pack Sixty-Four Lovely WMA Good Patch Tuesday, Good Patch Tuesday Steve Ballmer's Lonely Developers Club Band (Reprise) Blue Screen of Life
The things I hypothesized about were tangential to my main point. My main point was that they have access to the primary source (the statute) and choose not to use it. My tangential point was that this is extra-hypocritical because they were complaining about losing access that they have probably never availed themselves of.
Yes. My hypothesizing based on available evidence is reasonable, because I do not have the means to know for certain. Theirs is unreasonable, becuase they do have the means to know and choose not to use them.
But did DHS even ask Congress or entertain the notion? I don't have the answer to that. What I do know is that the President, DHS, the whole danged government and the general populace don't get to decide which laws do and do not apply to them. They can't selectively choose to obey this law and disobey that law. No matter what the percieved necessity may be.
Did you even read the Act in question? I don't have the answer to that. What I do know is that to the extent the statute requires notice, it applies equally to closed and open meetings. The 15-day period is not statutory, the law only requires "timely" notice. And finally, the notice requirement doesn't even apply when necessary for reasons of national security. So spare me your baseless rantings about ignoring the law.
Slashdot Mirror
More speech by one party doesn't cause less speech by the other. After all, you could say the same thing about hard work: if candidate A gets 1000 volunteers to go knock on doors and candidate B only gets 1, well then candidate B is "effectively muted" by not having as many volunteers. Shall we then make it a crime to volunteer for campaigns? In any case, this position is inconsistent with your argument that individuals should be free to spend their own money as much as they want - that certainly does not result in equal amounts of election speech. By adopting equality of outcome as a criteria for fair elections, you end up having to impose all sorts of Harrison Bergeron-esque handicaps.
I found the fact that he didn't think Japanese players could handle the scenario of terrorist/counterterrorist, especially if the terrorists won. Is this some kind of crude stereotype? are Japanese hypersensitive about this issue specifically? Or just in general? I don't know, but I would speculate they're also pretty sensitive about WWII games, no? More or less so than the Germans?
Here? On Slashdot? I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
Well correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Kerberos designed to be extendable? In other words, isn't the ability to extend the standard part of the standard itself?
Why not? Why shouldn't I, as an INDIVIDUAL, be able to voluntarily take orders from whoever I want? If I have a pot of money, what business is it of the government whether I listen to how my financial planner tells me to spend it, how moveon.org tells me to spend it, or how the DNC tells me to spend it?
That's rather trivial to do with Asterisk. If you've got an old spare box laying around (A pentium II will do!) toss it on and try it out.
No, think about it. You dial the number, then press "SEND". The routing of your call does not actually take place until the number has been completely dialed and the "SEND" button pressed. What you say is true of POTS with a dial tone, though.
No, they're not all okay, that's what McCain Feingold is all about! For example, you can make som kinds of independent expenditures (so-called "soft money"), but you can't coordinate with the campaign while doing so. Also, there are now limits to what you can do within a certain time period of the election, and so on.
But to give unlimited contributions directly to a presidental canidate or political party is wrong.
There are already laws that govern how much you can donate directly to a campaign (it's not a whole lot.) As for donations to the party organizations, why should giving money to them be different than giving money to any other private organization?
This is not really about giving cash to candidates. Even under your scenario: suppose all candidates are funded equally from a public pool. I, a private citizen, wish to dedicate my time and my checking account to persuading as many people as possible that candidate X is the best choice. Under your proposed system, is this permissible? Does it change if I encourage others to join me? If I encourage others to help me by volunteering? Help me with cash donations? What if I voluntarily do the bidding of the campaign manager? What if I try to guess what the campaign manager wants, and do it? What if I take money from the campaign?
The US is getting close to making sure all encrypted communication has back doors for the government.On what information do you base this?
He was asked a direct question about it. What should he have done? Lied? Run away? I suppose he could have just said "no comment," but all things considered, don't we want more transparency, not less?
Isn't this why they have the Windows "N" versions?
You don't even know what a write-off is, do you?
</Jerry>
Or a used Xbox 1. It has some top notch emulators, and you can just ftp the roms to the hard disk and leave them there.
How about we post news articles when things actually do ship on time.
It's not that hard to understand the summary. You have "Algorithmic", "Political", and "Media." Understanding the summary is simply a matter of context-mapping these modal figuratives to a linear grammar that can be gleaned from the summary domain. Each feature, then, is rotated to the cerebral context, where it it becomes internalized as a distinctive functional notion. Summarizing, then, we assume that an important property of these three types of EC is not quite equivalent to irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. For one thing, this selectionally introduced contextual feature cannot be arbitrary in the traditional practice of grammarians. We will bring evidence in favor of the following thesis: the notion of level of grammaticalness is to be regarded as nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory. Clearly, the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction can be defined in such a way as to impose a stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories. In the discussion of resumptive pronouns following the headline, the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial does not readily tolerate a parasitic gap construction, thus it is perfectly clear.
Start the reactor. Free Mars. I mean Earth, that's it, Earth. Yes. Free Earth.
Not necessarily. Exploiting geothermal power often releases significant quantities of CO2 and methane, both greenhouse gasses.
I doubt we all visit Slashdot every day.
So I suppose to download music I would go to www.itunes.com, righ? Hmmmm, why look at that, it redirects to www.apple.com. Why, look at the titlebar! "Apple - iPod + iTunes!" No Apple branding there, no siree!
Steve Ballmer's Lonely Developers Club Band
With A Little Help From My Friends in the Justice Department
Windows in the Sky With MS Hearts
Getting Better For Our Next Release
Fixing a (Security) Hole
She's Leaving Microsoft
Being For the Benefit of Mr. Gates
Lock-in You, Lock-out You
Service Pack Sixty-Four
Lovely WMA
Good Patch Tuesday, Good Patch Tuesday
Steve Ballmer's Lonely Developers Club Band (Reprise)
Blue Screen of Life
-1 Lame, I know, but it was fun.
The things I hypothesized about were tangential to my main point. My main point was that they have access to the primary source (the statute) and choose not to use it. My tangential point was that this is extra-hypocritical because they were complaining about losing access that they have probably never availed themselves of.
Indeed - it seems like submerged-arc welding of the type done for naval vessels could be much more easily done in an airless environment.
Yes. My hypothesizing based on available evidence is reasonable, because I do not have the means to know for certain. Theirs is unreasonable, becuase they do have the means to know and choose not to use them.
Did you even read the Act in question? I don't have the answer to that. What I do know is that to the extent the statute requires notice, it applies equally to closed and open meetings. The 15-day period is not statutory, the law only requires "timely" notice. And finally, the notice requirement doesn't even apply when necessary for reasons of national security. So spare me your baseless rantings about ignoring the law.