Oh, that's easy. Legalize marijuana, and reduce the criminalization of other drugs, and also make this retroactive to all current inmates. Suddenly, many/most of the people in jail will be released.
One of the things Ron Paul said, which should go a good way to showing people Ron Paul isn't racist, is that he would pardon all of the people in prison for nonviolent drug offenses. Since as a percentage of the various skin colours more Blacks are serving tyme for drug charges many would set free.
While I agree with the general sentiments of Dubya, and didn't like Bush Sr as pres, Bush Sr was shot down in the Pacific during WWII when the plane he was flying was hit by Japanese anti-aircraft fire. If you have any info contradicting this I'd like to see it.
I used to believe in shrinking the government. But I got over that bit of self-delusion a decade or so back. Ron Paul, whether he likes it or not, whether he believes it or not, will NOT shrink the Federal government.
Because that can only be done by the Congress. And they sure aren't going to do it for him, or anyone else short of God Almighty coming down and telling them to do so. Or being first up against the wall, come the revolution. Whichever happens first.
And I used to believe in expanding government. But I got over my self-delusion about two decades ago.
While as president Ron Paul wouldn't be able to actually get rid of all the government he could veto all spending, in which case unless congress overrode the veto the federal government would have to shut down. I'd love to see that.
The executive can set law enforcement priorities. It can also pardon or commute the sentences of convicts. Ron Paul can tell the nation: "stop paying your income tax and I will pardon you."
I'm sorry, but illegal immigration is illegal because our infrastructure would be totally overwhelmed if it wasn't. The federal government didn't just arbitrarily decide it would be a good idea to be exclusionary. Our health care system alone is falling apart because they are obligated by law to care for those without the means to pay. I'm paying over $300 / month for health care insurance, and I have an $8000 annual deductible. That's just one aspect.
Immigration was made illegal for racial and religious reason, or because of other prejudices. Go back to the mid 1850s for an example. From 1854 to 1856 the Know Nothings pushed for laws making it illegal for Irish Catholics to immigrate to the US. In 1882 it was the Chinese who were discriminated against, with the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act. Though these are the only examples I recall now there have been other examples wherein some tried to have laws passed or were successful in having them passed that excluded groups of people from immigration.
That anyone can freely move to any country, and no one can say differently?
So long as they don't harm an other, that's what I think.
And if that's the case, that someone can come to America without any permission from the government, then why is it that they can use services that my tax dollars help fund? Shouldn't I get a say in what people can use the services my tax dollars fund?
That's the problem with welfare which has nothing to do with immigrants. Get rid of most if not all welfare programs, including the billions of dollars corporations collect. Instead allow people to keep the money they earn and let them spend it as they see fit, so long as they don't harm others. When people have more money they have more to invest and or more to spend thus boosting the economy. Or they can donate it. Civil society is usually more effective than government. Because of the size of government it's not responsive to those who pay whereas because civil societies are funded by people who donate willingly they are more responsive to those who pay.
As the child of legal immigrants and naturalized citizens who bothered to obey the laws, learn English, and not expect a handout, I find it wholly offensive that anyone should propose that we do not deal with stopping people from sneaking across the borders and illegally taking up residence here.
Being part Native American Indian I find it offensive that those, or their descendants, who invaded the Americas and massacred those already here now seek to stop others from also immigrating.
First things first, however... it has to stop with sealing the borders... stop the influx before dealing with who's here.
The first question that needs to be asked is why people would risk their lives to "illegally" immigrate. For many, if they can earn a living where they are from they will stay there. And yes, the US is partially to blame. Because of the billions of dollars large agribusinesses like ADM and Cargill get in subsidies, corporate welfare, and NAFTA these businesses can export corn to Mexico and sell it there for cheaper than Mexican farmers can grow corn.
What right to Mexicans have to cross into our territory and undermine our values and freedoms
I'm going to reply as if you meant "what right do Mexicans". Fact is is many, maybe not all, Mexicans are of Native American Indian Tribe descent and their ancestors have been here a lot longer than any conquering Europeans. Some Indian tribes even have the right to cross the US Mexican border whenever they want. Such as the Tohono O'odham Nation and other Indian tribes. Actually the Tohono O'odham Nation straddles the US Mexican order with part in the US and part in Mexico. Though the tribes have the right to cross the border many are still beingharassed.
The BookEndz are very hacky and don't allow you to have two external monitors as I mentioned in my post (which you even quoted, apparently without reading).
I did read it and you said "let me have 2 monitors". There no "external" in there. Laptops already have one monitor, that's what the LCD is, and the BookEndz station has video out so you can hook up a second monitor, this one being external.
Which firm out of curiosity? There is really only one major PC company I have barely used and that is Dell.
My first PC was from Gateway and the second I had trouble with was an HP. The best Windows PC I got was from Microway, I got it at the same tyme I got the Gateway. Unfortunately though it's cpu's a DEC Alpha and I wasn't able to install much software on it, DEC said with FX!32 almost any software that ran in NT4 would run on Alphas, but that wasn't true. Out of several programs I bought I was only able to install one, Borland's C++ Powerbuilder. I got it as a dualboot, Windows NT4.0 installed on one hdd and Redhat Linux installed on another.
Why do you care about the stock price? Why does it matter? Just buy less shares (if you want to buy)....
Because lower prices on stock allow investor to buy more. Say a person has $1000 to invest. At $160 per share, and Apple closed higher today, they could buy 6 shares. However if they cost $40 then they could buy 24 shares. Or better using Dollar cost averaging a person invests $210 a month, with $10 going to the broker. That person can buy 1 share at $160 with $40 left sitting as cash and not earning money. It would take 4 months before that $40 left after each buy order to enable you to buy 2 shares. However if the price is $40 dollars 5 shares could be bought each month totaling $200. In the first example you only have 1 share worth $160 but in the second you have 5 shares worth $200.
My own experience has been terrible. Losing computers for months, returning them claiming there was no issue, reinstalling the OS but not actually fixing the hardware issues. I've had it all.
I have had the same thing happen to me with my Windows PCs.
But I honestly find OS X (10.4 series and earlier.. I have barely played with 10.5), I notice the applications don't multi task
I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro running Tiger, 10.4, and I have no problem multitasking.
Never assume you are safe, that is the first fault in security and such ideals will lead to larger security problems.
Now this I agree with. When OS X has a big enough market share viruses and other malware will be written for it. Which is why I'd rather see a number of OSes all having significant market shares, at least oh say 15 to 20% each. More diversity makes it harder to write malware that takes out most computers.
Yup, that is the MAIN reason. When these first came out, they made me incredibly angry due to the fact that Apple gave insinuations that the Mac never crashes, or freezes (this constantly happened to me with 10.4 and my machine died when upgrading to Leopard). Or comments about how the Mac is impervious to viruses (which we all know by know is not the case). Apple just took a bunch of stereotypes about Mac and PCs (many of which are completely wrong), and threw them in a commercial, even though most of the stuff they were saying was complete BS.
While the Mac vs Windows ads are overblown to me I still think they are relatively accurate. I bought 3 new Windows PCs, for myself. Of those, two had the hdd die about 6 months later and had to be replaced. On the same two, one a Gateway and the other an HP, the motherboards had to be replace about a year after I got them. I also had to reinstall Windows a number of tymes. On the other hand I bought 2 used Macs. The first was a Mac SE30, made from 1988 to 1989, I bought in 1992. The only problem I had with it, other than it wasn't expandable or upgradeable, was when the floppy drive died in 2000 8 years later. The second was a PowerMac 7300/200 I bought shortly after the first died. My first problem with it was when it wouldn't bootup in 2006 6 years later.
It would seem to contradict their ad campaign which claims that no one wants Vista.
It would imply that Apple has an "official" hardware configuration for running Vista, and it might seem slower compared to, say, an HP or Dell hardware configuration for running Vista.
Apple did sell Windows. It was bundled with Virtual PC. If Apple were to sell Windows stand alone or preinstalled on a Mac then Apple would have to support it.
OEM versions of Windows are WAY WAY cheaper than $200, you know? (which is what Apple would be paying for the OS if it came pre-installed) - they could charge $50 extra and probably break even or even make a tenny-weeny profit. Even if they did that, they would probably still charge an extra $200 and laugh to the bank.
Last I checked Apple did sale MS Windows, I don't recall the price though.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, that's easy. Legalize marijuana, and reduce the criminalization of other drugs, and also make this retroactive to all current inmates. Suddenly, many/most of the people in jail will be released.
One of the things Ron Paul said, which should go a good way to showing people Ron Paul isn't racist, is that he would pardon all of the people in prison for nonviolent drug offenses. Since as a percentage of the various skin colours more Blacks are serving tyme for drug charges many would set free.
FalconPoint of order here. The New Republic is NOT a neo-con site. It is in fact quite liberal.
In point of fact, The New Republic IS NOT Liberal. TNR wants big government whereas Liberalism is about liberty and small government.
FalconWhile I agree with the general sentiments of Dubya, and didn't like Bush Sr as pres, Bush Sr was shot down in the Pacific during WWII when the plane he was flying was hit by Japanese anti-aircraft fire. If you have any info contradicting this I'd like to see it.
FalconI used to believe in shrinking the government. But I got over that bit of self-delusion a decade or so back. Ron Paul, whether he likes it or not, whether he believes it or not, will NOT shrink the Federal government.
Because that can only be done by the Congress. And they sure aren't going to do it for him, or anyone else short of God Almighty coming down and telling them to do so. Or being first up against the wall, come the revolution. Whichever happens first.
And I used to believe in expanding government. But I got over my self-delusion about two decades ago.
While as president Ron Paul wouldn't be able to actually get rid of all the government he could veto all spending, in which case unless congress overrode the veto the federal government would have to shut down. I'd love to see that.
FalconYour idea that the answer to racist violence and intimidation is to "just move somewhere else" is akin to saying "let them eat cake".
Perhaps you missed it but he did say "get the authorities replaced or move".
FalconThat Paul is either a bigot or a fool is self evident to anyone reading what went out under his name for decades
Do you have a reference this went on for decades? Last I heard it wasn't but 2 years at most.
FalconThe executive can set law enforcement priorities. It can also pardon or commute the sentences of convicts. Ron Paul can tell the nation: "stop paying your income tax and I will pardon you."
Ron Paul has already said he'd pardon all drug offenders.
FalconAre you really against Ron Paul or are you against borders in general?
In general I support Ron Paul but oppose borders.
FalconI'm sorry, but illegal immigration is illegal because our infrastructure would be totally overwhelmed if it wasn't. The federal government didn't just arbitrarily decide it would be a good idea to be exclusionary. Our health care system alone is falling apart because they are obligated by law to care for those without the means to pay. I'm paying over $300 / month for health care insurance, and I have an $8000 annual deductible. That's just one aspect.
Immigration was made illegal for racial and religious reason, or because of other prejudices. Go back to the mid 1850s for an example. From 1854 to 1856 the Know Nothings pushed for laws making it illegal for Irish Catholics to immigrate to the US. In 1882 it was the Chinese who were discriminated against, with the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act. Though these are the only examples I recall now there have been other examples wherein some tried to have laws passed or were successful in having them passed that excluded groups of people from immigration.
FalconThat anyone can freely move to any country, and no one can say differently?
So long as they don't harm an other, that's what I think.
And if that's the case, that someone can come to America without any permission from the government, then why is it that they can use services that my tax dollars help fund? Shouldn't I get a say in what people can use the services my tax dollars fund?
That's the problem with welfare which has nothing to do with immigrants. Get rid of most if not all welfare programs, including the billions of dollars corporations collect. Instead allow people to keep the money they earn and let them spend it as they see fit, so long as they don't harm others. When people have more money they have more to invest and or more to spend thus boosting the economy. Or they can donate it. Civil society is usually more effective than government. Because of the size of government it's not responsive to those who pay whereas because civil societies are funded by people who donate willingly they are more responsive to those who pay.
FalconAs the child of legal immigrants and naturalized citizens who bothered to obey the laws, learn English, and not expect a handout, I find it wholly offensive that anyone should propose that we do not deal with stopping people from sneaking across the borders and illegally taking up residence here.
Being part Native American Indian I find it offensive that those, or their descendants, who invaded the Americas and massacred those already here now seek to stop others from also immigrating.
First things first, however... it has to stop with sealing the borders... stop the influx before dealing with who's here.
The first question that needs to be asked is why people would risk their lives to "illegally" immigrate. For many, if they can earn a living where they are from they will stay there. And yes, the US is partially to blame. Because of the billions of dollars large agribusinesses like ADM and Cargill get in subsidies, corporate welfare, and NAFTA these businesses can export corn to Mexico and sell it there for cheaper than Mexican farmers can grow corn.
And Cargill is the poster child of corporate welfare.
FalconIt doesn't sound like you believe a government has any right to to tell anyone what they can or can't do.
You're right as long as they aren't harming or violating other's rights.
FalconWhat right to Mexicans have to cross into our territory and undermine our values and freedoms
I'm going to reply as if you meant "what right do Mexicans". Fact is is many, maybe not all, Mexicans are of Native American Indian Tribe descent and their ancestors have been here a lot longer than any conquering Europeans. Some Indian tribes even have the right to cross the US Mexican border whenever they want. Such as the Tohono O'odham Nation and other Indian tribes. Actually the Tohono O'odham Nation straddles the US Mexican order with part in the US and part in Mexico. Though the tribes have the right to cross the border many are still being harassed.
FalconOh, Ron Paul opposes free trade? Do you have any references for this?
Falconthe delivery time from Vega is too long.
You didn't go anywhere, you dropped right through.
FalconA union that helps certify and regulate bloggers could boost professionalism and disavow/sanction childish misbehavior.
And censure those who don't toe the party line.
FalconOS X uses modifier keys a lot more than windows: Drag = move, option+drag = copy, option+cmd+drag = shortcut.
Thanks, I'll try to recall that.
FalconThe BookEndz are very hacky and don't allow you to have two external monitors as I mentioned in my post (which you even quoted, apparently without reading).
I did read it and you said "let me have 2 monitors". There no "external" in there. Laptops already have one monitor, that's what the LCD is, and the BookEndz station has video out so you can hook up a second monitor, this one being external.
FalconThe only reason to a new monitor is to replace a bad one or because they want a bigger one or one with more resolution.
Of course. Do you think that a nice, big, clear screen is near the bottom of most people's list?
Perhaps you missed it but I did say "or because they want a bigger one or one with more resolution". You even included that part in your reply.
FalconWhich firm out of curiosity? There is really only one major PC company I have barely used and that is Dell.
My first PC was from Gateway and the second I had trouble with was an HP. The best Windows PC I got was from Microway, I got it at the same tyme I got the Gateway. Unfortunately though it's cpu's a DEC Alpha and I wasn't able to install much software on it, DEC said with FX!32 almost any software that ran in NT4 would run on Alphas, but that wasn't true. Out of several programs I bought I was only able to install one, Borland's C++ Powerbuilder. I got it as a dualboot, Windows NT4.0 installed on one hdd and Redhat Linux installed on another.
FalconWhy do you care about the stock price? Why does it matter? Just buy less shares (if you want to buy)....
Because lower prices on stock allow investor to buy more. Say a person has $1000 to invest. At $160 per share, and Apple closed higher today, they could buy 6 shares. However if they cost $40 then they could buy 24 shares. Or better using Dollar cost averaging a person invests $210 a month, with $10 going to the broker. That person can buy 1 share at $160 with $40 left sitting as cash and not earning money. It would take 4 months before that $40 left after each buy order to enable you to buy 2 shares. However if the price is $40 dollars 5 shares could be bought each month totaling $200. In the first example you only have 1 share worth $160 but in the second you have 5 shares worth $200.
FalconMy own experience has been terrible. Losing computers for months, returning them claiming there was no issue, reinstalling the OS but not actually fixing the hardware issues. I've had it all.
I have had the same thing happen to me with my Windows PCs.
But I honestly find OS X (10.4 series and earlier.. I have barely played with 10.5), I notice the applications don't multi task
I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro running Tiger, 10.4, and I have no problem multitasking.
Never assume you are safe, that is the first fault in security and such ideals will lead to larger security problems.
Now this I agree with. When OS X has a big enough market share viruses and other malware will be written for it. Which is why I'd rather see a number of OSes all having significant market shares, at least oh say 15 to 20% each. More diversity makes it harder to write malware that takes out most computers.
FalconYup, that is the MAIN reason. When these first came out, they made me incredibly angry due to the fact that Apple gave insinuations that the Mac never crashes, or freezes (this constantly happened to me with 10.4 and my machine died when upgrading to Leopard). Or comments about how the Mac is impervious to viruses (which we all know by know is not the case). Apple just took a bunch of stereotypes about Mac and PCs (many of which are completely wrong), and threw them in a commercial, even though most of the stuff they were saying was complete BS.
While the Mac vs Windows ads are overblown to me I still think they are relatively accurate. I bought 3 new Windows PCs, for myself. Of those, two had the hdd die about 6 months later and had to be replaced. On the same two, one a Gateway and the other an HP, the motherboards had to be replace about a year after I got them. I also had to reinstall Windows a number of tymes. On the other hand I bought 2 used Macs. The first was a Mac SE30, made from 1988 to 1989, I bought in 1992. The only problem I had with it, other than it wasn't expandable or upgradeable, was when the floppy drive died in 2000 8 years later. The second was a PowerMac 7300/200 I bought shortly after the first died. My first problem with it was when it wouldn't bootup in 2006 6 years later.
FalconApple did sell Windows. It was bundled with Virtual PC. If Apple were to sell Windows stand alone or preinstalled on a Mac then Apple would have to support it.
FalconOEM versions of Windows are WAY WAY cheaper than $200, you know? (which is what Apple would be paying for the OS if it came pre-installed) - they could charge $50 extra and probably break even or even make a tenny-weeny profit. Even if they did that, they would probably still charge an extra $200 and laugh to the bank.
Last I checked Apple did sale MS Windows, I don't recall the price though.