Actually, it is:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The fact that the federal government has abused the commerce clause and completly disregarded most of the constitution for some time now doesn't make this particular encroachment right.
Again, no one can tell me how this is a violation of rights. Does it limit free speech? Does it search your house? Does it take away your guns or limit the freedom of the press? Does it keep you from worshiping the God of your choice or your right to petition your government? What right is violated here? Amendment X?
Nowhere in the tenth amendment does it say rights, it talks of power. If the Constitution does not give the federal government the power then that power is reserved to the people or the states. As the Constitution does not say the feds have the power this means the feds have no power in requiring a national id.
So are you telling me that Congress can not pass laws? Why do we keep sending those slackers to Washington for? I thought that was their job! Shows what I know!
Congress can pass any law they want but that does not mean every law is Constitutional.
I'll show you as soon as you show me where in the Constitution it authorizes HUD, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and everything else our gov't does that is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. Just because it's not stated, does not mean it is forbidden.
The USA Constitution does not say the feds can do many of these and they should be gotten rid of. That or amend the Constitution to allow them And as the Costitution is a limit on the feds it does prohibit them from requiring a national id. The Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791 even states this clearly:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Who said anything about telling people where they can and can't go? Why would an ID prevent you from going somewhere? Is there some secret clause in this law that states that once you receive this new ID, you must get permission before traveling over state lines? My Social Security card has never prevented me from going anywhere.
Then you haven't had your name on the Do Not Fly list. Yosuf Islam, previously known as the singer Cat Stevens, found himself on it. Sen. Ted Kennedy has been barred from flying a number of tymes because his name was on it. He may of killed someone when he went off the road in a river but he's not a terrorist.
If the original bill was passed by the US House and Senate and signed into law, a state has no right to nullify that law. This is because of the federal supremacy clause in the US Constitution. Here's a link with the details.
A state may not have the right to nullify a federal law but they do have the right to say the law is unconstitutional. So, if it's a question on constitutionality, then where does the USA Constitution give the federal government the authority to require a national id? And remember the Constitution is a restrictionn on what the feds can do, if the Constitution does not say the feds can do it then they can't.
Ow, come on, I don't like the highway fund holdup scam either, but you are overstretching it. The mafia would actually proactively come and torch your place if you don't pay up, whereas the federal government isn't going to, like, send in the troops and destroy the highways.
Check out Ruby Ridge and Waco and see if they don't do stuff like send in the troops.
Some school districts do use corporeal punishment, spanking, some don't. Some that use it have to get parental permission first, others don't.
I find its usually people who hit their kids or were hit as children that steadfastly defend physical assault as a valid parenting technique. Which means they have a fuckload of emotional baggage attached to the issue, and are not a good source of info.
Of course, they know how effective it can be. However just because parents were spanked as children doesn't mean they're abusive as parents. In some situations spanking is effective and in others it's not. Growing up I was spanked, however, while I don't have children myself I have a nephew and two neices I babysat and I never even spanked or otherwise hit never mind abused them. And not just because I didn't spend much tyme with them, for almost a year I took care of my older neice from Friday evening to Monday morning three tymes a month. My sister who was her mother got divorced about the tyme she was born and she was in the Army Reserves so she had duty one weekend a month, then as a nurse in a hospital she had to work every other weekend. Those weekends she worked or had duty she would come over to my place and drop her daughter off on Friday night, then pick her up Monday morning.
This idea that not hitting your children means you're not disciplining them is nonsense.
The idea that spanking your child for discipline is abuse is nonsense too. Some kids only learn when they suffer pain. Do you cook? If so are you careful so you don't burn yourself? If so why? More than likely you were burned as a child. I know I was, a number of tymes, one that sticks in my mind is when as an adolescent I was cooking and I got burning oil on my arm. After that I made sure I didn't do what I did to cause that again. So while I exercise care, I don't fear cooking. Actually I love to cook, and bake.
The thing an 18 year old living on his/her own as a responsible adults needs to do is learn the fine art of brewing their own beer and vinting their own wines. Failing to learn these life-skills dooms a person to a life time of drinking sub-standard corporate piss-waters. Consider the three years as a no-compete period to hone your skills.
Ah, yes homebrewing. More people young and old should homebrew.
You mean there is such a thing as a good American beer???? You must be kidding me;) sex in a canoe all the way!
There are lots of good beers in the US, however most aren't mass market brands. Most are either microbrews or homebrew. Ah, I see you're joking.
I'm in Amsterdam right now - they really do their strong beers well here - mostly belgien, several of them trappist beers, but I'm more of an ale/bitter/stout person than a lager/pilsner drinker - but then I'm also a home brewer so its not much of an issue:)
BS. If someone can join the military and possibly get killed then they should be able to drink, without their parents' permission. And parents should be able to give their teens an alcoholic drink, even when eating dinner in a restaurant.
, but I don't like the idea of the Federal govt enforcing that on the states, it should be up to each state to decide without pressure from the feds.
Agreed, the feds shouldn't be holding state hostage over things it has no Constitutional authority over. That includes overbearing laws the courts use the interstate commerce clause to justify.
You may be joking, however without visual or audio cues, ie irl, I frequently can't tell when a person is straight forward or is joking. As for how long I've been here on/. I've been a member for several years.
There is a hugh difference, there really is no comparison, between a parent shooting an intruder and supporting an invasion of a sovereign nation which leaves 200,000 dead.
No, there is little difference. You have to look at the motivation and compare it to the actions. Invading Iraq was someone who wanted to protect someone else. Like the person who goes to the street corner and shoots the person who sold his kid the PCP he took before getting convinced he could fly from the roof of the house.
There's little difference between shooting an intruder and supporting another country's leader in his invasion of a sovereign nation leading to the death of 200,000, about 1/3 of it's citizens? There's little difference between one dead and 200,000? I'n absolutely bewildered you can equate the two. If anything, if you're going to shoot one intruder you should shoot thousands of intruders as well, not support those intruders. But that is exactly what Ford and Kissinger did, they supported Indonesia's leader Suharto in his invasion of East Timor. This also has nothing to do with a parent shooting a dealer who sales PCP.
Saddom Invading Kuwait because of greed and oil (yes it was about oil, Slant drilling to be exact) Is like a criminal trying to justify killing a store clerk because the prices are too high and the clerk caught him stealing the products. Doesn't sound right does it.
If Saddam was wrong in invading Kuwait even though Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraq, how much worst could it be to support the invasion of a sovereign nation when that nations poses no threat and does nothing antaganistic to provoke the invader? East Timor was no threat in fantasy or reality to Indonesia.
I've got to say, if you really think there's not much of a difference between shooting one intruder and supporting an invader who then kills 200,000 in East Timor then you're no type of person I want to know or correspond with and I'd end it here.
Once again, paid speech on behalf of a political campaign is advertisement and should be treated as such. The general rule is that if you get a W-2 for what you're doing, it's susceptible to regulation.
Actually Thomas Paine was being paid at least some while he wrote. His "The Crisis" wherein he wrote the famous line "These are the times that try men's souls" he wrote while he was serving in the Continental Army under Washington.
I was born, raised, and have lived in the USA for more than 40 years. Other than Canada the only other countries I have been in are Panama and Germany. While I was in the Army, my unit went to Panama for three weeks for training, then I was transfered to Germany.
What if you were doing construction work on someone's house and they decided not to pay you even though you completed what was outlined in the contract?
Ah, remodelers have a terrific tool to use in cases like this, a construction lien. Either the contractor is paid, or the house can be put up for auction to satisfy the contract.
If you take a job on a verbal contract, either you'd better REALLY know the person you'd making the deal with, or have a recording of it, or you're nuts.
The problem, that least in the US, is that in order to record the conversation legally you have to have the permission of all the parties of the conversation, at least in most states. And it's doubtful that if they won't give you a written offer, they'll let you record the conversation. Then again if they don't give you a written offer or allow you to record the offer then more than likely it's not an employer you want to work with.
I think you missed the point... it doesn't have to be a lie for them to pursue a lawsuit... only for them to win. Meanwhile, it's they're MegaCorp lawyers up against whoever you can afford after having just quit one job and turned down another....
Ah, but you missed where it says "After I accepted the offer and made plans to terminate my current job," he still had a job as he hadn't quit yet.
It's only defamation if it's a lie. And the plaintiff has to prove the person is knowingly telling a lie, which isn't easy otherwise all those weekly rags that publish dirt on celebrities would be out of business.
First, WMDs were one of the reasons as well as Iraq defying UN resolutions and Not to mention one or two isolated instances were we know about Al Qeada and Iraq mingling.
First what resolutions did Iraq defy? And how does it compare to the number of UN resolutions Israel continues to defy? Also if you want to talk about UN resolutions then let's talk about treaties too. The US has broken many treaties, treaties made with American Indian tribes, signed, and approved by congress. Even now, Bush wants to violate treaties, his push to site nuclear waste storage at Yucca in a violation of a treaty with the Western Shoshone. Yucca is part of a reservation promissed to the Shoshone by the Ruby Valley Treaty. As for any connections between al Quada and Saddam, those claims of meetings have been shown to be false aligations. Saddam also knew bin Laden and al Quada wanted him dead so there's no way he would support them. bin Laden even called upon Iraqis to rise up against Saddam and to repele invaders.
You doubtfully had any more or less respect for Powel after he went to the UN with the case for war.
So, you can read my mind? What am I thinking now?
Chavez, in the early 90's was charging a 1% tax in income derived from thier oil fields and the split was the oil company devloping the fields would kep 84% of the revenue and venezuela would keep 16%.
Chavez wasn't even president of Venezuela in th eearly '90s. He wasn't elected president until 1998. He did lead a coup in 1992 but it failed.
Ever since he has been attempting to keep his popularity by claiming the US is out to get him and justifying it with crazy speaches.
So no one in the US wanted to get him? Then why did Bush support the coup? Isn't that out to get him? Also didn't Pat Robertson, or another rightwing Christian leader call for his assassination?
Whats your point other then republican leaders suck? Kenedy has done some pretty bad things too. Isn't he the one who got us into vietnam?
First, I am not Democrat, politically I am Libertarian. Now as for Kennedy, while he escalated troop deployment to Viet Nam, he did not get the US into the country. The Republican president who warned of the military industrial complex, Eisenhower first sent troops there. By 1955/6 in an accord both North and South Vietnam agreed to have a vote on whether they should reunite or remain two nations. Eisenhower was against this vote so he sent Edward Lansdale, an Air Force Col at the tyme to South Vietnam. There he sought out Veit Namese who opposed the reunitication, armed, and trained them.
Thre are neccesary evils that need to happen for various reasons.
Like two wrongs make a right?
Mostly these reasons are for the security and safety of the country. This is no different then a parrent shooting an intruder who tryed to attack him after discovering the intruder malesting his children.
There is a hugh difference, there really is no comparison, between a parent shooting an intruder and supporting an invasion of a sovereign nation which leaves 200,000 dead.
It definatly wasn't a perfect model but it also defniatly wasn't Reagan or bush going "here is some money and weapons, kill some of your own citizens" like your tone tries to make it.
While they may not of supported Saddam's massacres they still could have stopped supporting him once it became known what he was doing. But did they? NO!!!
Use some reason and thought in it and skip the political bias a little.
Yeah. I'll pay for Click-N-Run, which has about the same package set and ease of use as Synaptic.
CNR is free for most if not all FOSS software, however there is a paid service of CNR which gives you discounts on commercial apps, like CrossOver, Win4Lin, and Cedega. Does Synaptic offer these? Also Linspire offer legal software to play dvds.
I wasn't saying that all gun nuts were rednecks, nor that all rednecks or gun nuts voted for the shrubbery. The vast majority of the union seem to be pro-shrub, though.
Perhaps that's because he supports the right of people to carry firearms.
Oh. Well, then. Separate browsers, or multiple copies of Firefox with different profiles. I've used the later to log in with two different accounts on some websites, and it wasn't that difficult to set up with FF 2. The only irritating part about it was that I couldn't just click on links in IRC or such, but had to copy and paste them.
Yea, someone else mentioned different browsers could be used, it's something I hadn't thought of. You've used different copies of Firefox? What did you do, install more than one version, or install the same version in different places? If you do this, either one, do they keep thier own settings or do they share the same ones? I'd like to be able to install different versions on the same computer but keep them separated so I could test websites in the different versions.
Does it solve any of the hard problems well, like conflicting dependencies on libraries, circular dependencies (that is, several packages must be upgraded together or not at all like a transaction), packages from other sources?
Yes, CNR checks for dependencies. If one is missing CNR will install it, and though I don't know how they do it CNR also checks for conflicts in dependencies.
Besides, they seem to easily ignore that most apps are installed with "apt-get install [name]" or similar one-click in a graphical package manager.
They even have an app that converts apt-get, Debwrap.
I understand that they're out to make money but they're making a mountain out of a molehill.
I think you're wrong. Linspire's purpose is to bring Linux to the masses, and CNR makes it a lot easier for new users of Linux to install software, basically you go through the warehouse looking for software you want to install and once you've made your selection you click one botton to install your choices. There's no worrying about dependencies, which hardly anyone knows about to begin with, and it's just another click to uninstall software. That's what the mass market wants.
Basicly what you're paying for is the hold-my-hand frontend and the privilidge of paying for commercial apps.
You don't have to pay to use CNR. The basic level is free and it allows you to install many FOSS packages. Now there is the paid service CNR Gold which offers discounts on commercial software like Crossover Linux, Win4Lin, and Cedega.
Their other promise requires debian to give up apt-get, red hat to give rpms and so on - when hell drops below absolute zero.
CNR has a utility that converts apt-get to the CNR install type, Debwrap. They also have several packages for rpms.
I would consider myself an above-average user, but when I go to install something that's outside the scope of my repositories and get shot down by the dependency failures... that's when I get a little peeved.
If Linux standardised, I'd be sure to recommend it to my friends and family. Even the dumbest "For Dummies" distros aren't simple enough for Joe Bloggers to use.
That's a good thing about CNR, you don't have to worry about any dependencies. CNR does it all for you.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it is:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The fact that the federal government has abused the commerce clause and completly disregarded most of the constitution for some time now doesn't make this particular encroachment right. Again, no one can tell me how this is a violation of rights. Does it limit free speech? Does it search your house? Does it take away your guns or limit the freedom of the press? Does it keep you from worshiping the God of your choice or your right to petition your government? What right is violated here? Amendment X?
Nowhere in the tenth amendment does it say rights, it talks of power. If the Constitution does not give the federal government the power then that power is reserved to the people or the states. As the Constitution does not say the feds have the power this means the feds have no power in requiring a national id.
So are you telling me that Congress can not pass laws? Why do we keep sending those slackers to Washington for? I thought that was their job! Shows what I know!
Congress can pass any law they want but that does not mean every law is Constitutional.
FalconI'll show you as soon as you show me where in the Constitution it authorizes HUD, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and everything else our gov't does that is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. Just because it's not stated, does not mean it is forbidden.
The USA Constitution does not say the feds can do many of these and they should be gotten rid of. That or amend the Constitution to allow them And as the Costitution is a limit on the feds it does prohibit them from requiring a national id. The Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791 even states this clearly:
Falcon"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Who said anything about telling people where they can and can't go? Why would an ID prevent you from going somewhere? Is there some secret clause in this law that states that once you receive this new ID, you must get permission before traveling over state lines? My Social Security card has never prevented me from going anywhere.
Then you haven't had your name on the Do Not Fly list. Yosuf Islam, previously known as the singer Cat Stevens, found himself on it. Sen. Ted Kennedy has been barred from flying a number of tymes because his name was on it. He may of killed someone when he went off the road in a river but he's not a terrorist.
FalconOr why you need ID to travel across state lines all of a sudden.
Actually you don't need id to fly, but if you don't have or show id then you may have to go through a more thorough search at the airport.
FalconIf the original bill was passed by the US House and Senate and signed into law, a state has no right to nullify that law. This is because of the federal supremacy clause in the US Constitution. Here's a link with the details.
A state may not have the right to nullify a federal law but they do have the right to say the law is unconstitutional. So, if it's a question on constitutionality, then where does the USA Constitution give the federal government the authority to require a national id? And remember the Constitution is a restrictionn on what the feds can do, if the Constitution does not say the feds can do it then they can't.
FalconOw, come on, I don't like the highway fund holdup scam either, but you are overstretching it. The mafia would actually proactively come and torch your place if you don't pay up, whereas the federal government isn't going to, like, send in the troops and destroy the highways.
Check out Ruby Ridge and Waco and see if they don't do stuff like send in the troops.
FalconSome school districts do use corporeal punishment, spanking, some don't. Some that use it have to get parental permission first, others don't.
I find its usually people who hit their kids or were hit as children that steadfastly defend physical assault as a valid parenting technique. Which means they have a fuckload of emotional baggage attached to the issue, and are not a good source of info.
Of course, they know how effective it can be. However just because parents were spanked as children doesn't mean they're abusive as parents. In some situations spanking is effective and in others it's not. Growing up I was spanked, however, while I don't have children myself I have a nephew and two neices I babysat and I never even spanked or otherwise hit never mind abused them. And not just because I didn't spend much tyme with them, for almost a year I took care of my older neice from Friday evening to Monday morning three tymes a month. My sister who was her mother got divorced about the tyme she was born and she was in the Army Reserves so she had duty one weekend a month, then as a nurse in a hospital she had to work every other weekend. Those weekends she worked or had duty she would come over to my place and drop her daughter off on Friday night, then pick her up Monday morning.
FalconThis idea that not hitting your children means you're not disciplining them is nonsense.
The idea that spanking your child for discipline is abuse is nonsense too. Some kids only learn when they suffer pain. Do you cook? If so are you careful so you don't burn yourself? If so why? More than likely you were burned as a child. I know I was, a number of tymes, one that sticks in my mind is when as an adolescent I was cooking and I got burning oil on my arm. After that I made sure I didn't do what I did to cause that again. So while I exercise care, I don't fear cooking. Actually I love to cook, and bake.
FalconThe thing an 18 year old living on his/her own as a responsible adults needs to do is learn the fine art of brewing their own beer and vinting their own wines. Failing to learn these life-skills dooms a person to a life time of drinking sub-standard corporate piss-waters. Consider the three years as a no-compete period to hone your skills.
Ah, yes homebrewing. More people young and old should homebrew.
FalconYou mean there is such a thing as a good American beer???? You must be kidding me ;) sex in a canoe all the way!
There are lots of good beers in the US, however most aren't mass market brands. Most are either microbrews or homebrew. Ah, I see you're joking.
I'm in Amsterdam right now - they really do their strong beers well here - mostly belgien, several of them trappist beers, but I'm more of an ale/bitter/stout person than a lager/pilsner drinker - but then I'm also a home brewer so its not much of an issue :)
Have you tried any of the framboise, fruit beers?
FalconI agree with 21 as a good drinking age
BS. If someone can join the military and possibly get killed then they should be able to drink, without their parents' permission. And parents should be able to give their teens an alcoholic drink, even when eating dinner in a restaurant.
, but I don't like the idea of the Federal govt enforcing that on the states, it should be up to each state to decide without pressure from the feds.
Agreed, the feds shouldn't be holding state hostage over things it has no Constitutional authority over. That includes overbearing laws the courts use the interstate commerce clause to justify.
FalconYou must be new here (on Slashdot)... ;-)
You may be joking, however without visual or audio cues, ie irl, I frequently can't tell when a person is straight forward or is joking. As for how long I've been here on /. I've been a member for several years.
FalconThere is a hugh difference, there really is no comparison, between a parent shooting an intruder and supporting an invasion of a sovereign nation which leaves 200,000 dead.
No, there is little difference. You have to look at the motivation and compare it to the actions. Invading Iraq was someone who wanted to protect someone else. Like the person who goes to the street corner and shoots the person who sold his kid the PCP he took before getting convinced he could fly from the roof of the house.
There's little difference between shooting an intruder and supporting another country's leader in his invasion of a sovereign nation leading to the death of 200,000, about 1/3 of it's citizens? There's little difference between one dead and 200,000? I'n absolutely bewildered you can equate the two. If anything, if you're going to shoot one intruder you should shoot thousands of intruders as well, not support those intruders. But that is exactly what Ford and Kissinger did, they supported Indonesia's leader Suharto in his invasion of East Timor. This also has nothing to do with a parent shooting a dealer who sales PCP.
Saddom Invading Kuwait because of greed and oil (yes it was about oil, Slant drilling to be exact) Is like a criminal trying to justify killing a store clerk because the prices are too high and the clerk caught him stealing the products. Doesn't sound right does it.
If Saddam was wrong in invading Kuwait even though Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraq, how much worst could it be to support the invasion of a sovereign nation when that nations poses no threat and does nothing antaganistic to provoke the invader? East Timor was no threat in fantasy or reality to Indonesia.
I've got to say, if you really think there's not much of a difference between shooting one intruder and supporting an invader who then kills 200,000 in East Timor then you're no type of person I want to know or correspond with and I'd end it here.
FalconOnce again, paid speech on behalf of a political campaign is advertisement and should be treated as such. The general rule is that if you get a W-2 for what you're doing, it's susceptible to regulation.
Actually Thomas Paine was being paid at least some while he wrote. His "The Crisis" wherein he wrote the famous line "These are the times that try men's souls" he wrote while he was serving in the Continental Army under Washington.
FalconI was born, raised, and have lived in the USA for more than 40 years. Other than Canada the only other countries I have been in are Panama and Germany. While I was in the Army, my unit went to Panama for three weeks for training, then I was transfered to Germany.
FalconWhat if you were doing construction work on someone's house and they decided not to pay you even though you completed what was outlined in the contract?
Ah, remodelers have a terrific tool to use in cases like this, a construction lien. Either the contractor is paid, or the house can be put up for auction to satisfy the contract.
FalconIf you take a job on a verbal contract, either you'd better REALLY know the person you'd making the deal with, or have a recording of it, or you're nuts.
The problem, that least in the US, is that in order to record the conversation legally you have to have the permission of all the parties of the conversation, at least in most states. And it's doubtful that if they won't give you a written offer, they'll let you record the conversation. Then again if they don't give you a written offer or allow you to record the offer then more than likely it's not an employer you want to work with.
FalconI think you missed the point... it doesn't have to be a lie for them to pursue a lawsuit... only for them to win. Meanwhile, it's they're MegaCorp lawyers up against whoever you can afford after having just quit one job and turned down another....
Ah, but you missed where it says "After I accepted the offer and made plans to terminate my current job," he still had a job as he hadn't quit yet.
Falconafter getting sued for defamation".
It's only defamation if it's a lie. And the plaintiff has to prove the person is knowingly telling a lie, which isn't easy otherwise all those weekly rags that publish dirt on celebrities would be out of business.
FalconFirst, WMDs were one of the reasons as well as Iraq defying UN resolutions and Not to mention one or two isolated instances were we know about Al Qeada and Iraq mingling.
First what resolutions did Iraq defy? And how does it compare to the number of UN resolutions Israel continues to defy? Also if you want to talk about UN resolutions then let's talk about treaties too. The US has broken many treaties, treaties made with American Indian tribes, signed, and approved by congress. Even now, Bush wants to violate treaties, his push to site nuclear waste storage at Yucca in a violation of a treaty with the Western Shoshone. Yucca is part of a reservation promissed to the Shoshone by the Ruby Valley Treaty. As for any connections between al Quada and Saddam, those claims of meetings have been shown to be false aligations. Saddam also knew bin Laden and al Quada wanted him dead so there's no way he would support them. bin Laden even called upon Iraqis to rise up against Saddam and to repele invaders.
You doubtfully had any more or less respect for Powel after he went to the UN with the case for war.
So, you can read my mind? What am I thinking now?
Chavez, in the early 90's was charging a 1% tax in income derived from thier oil fields and the split was the oil company devloping the fields would kep 84% of the revenue and venezuela would keep 16%.
Chavez wasn't even president of Venezuela in th eearly '90s. He wasn't elected president until 1998. He did lead a coup in 1992 but it failed.
Ever since he has been attempting to keep his popularity by claiming the US is out to get him and justifying it with crazy speaches.
So no one in the US wanted to get him? Then why did Bush support the coup? Isn't that out to get him? Also didn't Pat Robertson, or another rightwing Christian leader call for his assassination?
Whats your point other then republican leaders suck? Kenedy has done some pretty bad things too. Isn't he the one who got us into vietnam?
First, I am not Democrat, politically I am Libertarian. Now as for Kennedy, while he escalated troop deployment to Viet Nam, he did not get the US into the country. The Republican president who warned of the military industrial complex, Eisenhower first sent troops there. By 1955/6 in an accord both North and South Vietnam agreed to have a vote on whether they should reunite or remain two nations. Eisenhower was against this vote so he sent Edward Lansdale, an Air Force Col at the tyme to South Vietnam. There he sought out Veit Namese who opposed the reunitication, armed, and trained them.
Thre are neccesary evils that need to happen for various reasons.
Like two wrongs make a right?
Mostly these reasons are for the security and safety of the country. This is no different then a parrent shooting an intruder who tryed to attack him after discovering the intruder malesting his children.
There is a hugh difference, there really is no comparison, between a parent shooting an intruder and supporting an invasion of a sovereign nation which leaves 200,000 dead.
It definatly wasn't a perfect model but it also defniatly wasn't Reagan or bush going "here is some money and weapons, kill some of your own citizens" like your tone tries to make it.
While they may not of supported Saddam's massacres they still could have stopped supporting him once it became known what he was doing. But did they? NO!!!
Use some reason and thought in it and skip the political bias a little.
I suggest you do the same.
FalconYeah. I'll pay for Click-N-Run, which has about the same package set and ease of use as Synaptic.
CNR is free for most if not all FOSS software, however there is a paid service of CNR which gives you discounts on commercial apps, like CrossOver, Win4Lin, and Cedega. Does Synaptic offer these? Also Linspire offer legal software to play dvds.
FalconI wasn't saying that all gun nuts were rednecks, nor that all rednecks or gun nuts voted for the shrubbery. The vast majority of the union seem to be pro-shrub, though.
Perhaps that's because he supports the right of people to carry firearms.
FalconOh. Well, then. Separate browsers, or multiple copies of Firefox with different profiles. I've used the later to log in with two different accounts on some websites, and it wasn't that difficult to set up with FF 2. The only irritating part about it was that I couldn't just click on links in IRC or such, but had to copy and paste them.
Yea, someone else mentioned different browsers could be used, it's something I hadn't thought of. You've used different copies of Firefox? What did you do, install more than one version, or install the same version in different places? If you do this, either one, do they keep thier own settings or do they share the same ones? I'd like to be able to install different versions on the same computer but keep them separated so I could test websites in the different versions.
FalconDoes it solve any of the hard problems well, like conflicting dependencies on libraries, circular dependencies (that is, several packages must be upgraded together or not at all like a transaction), packages from other sources?
Yes, CNR checks for dependencies. If one is missing CNR will install it, and though I don't know how they do it CNR also checks for conflicts in dependencies.
Besides, they seem to easily ignore that most apps are installed with "apt-get install [name]" or similar one-click in a graphical package manager.
They even have an app that converts apt-get, Debwrap.
I understand that they're out to make money but they're making a mountain out of a molehill.
I think you're wrong. Linspire's purpose is to bring Linux to the masses, and CNR makes it a lot easier for new users of Linux to install software, basically you go through the warehouse looking for software you want to install and once you've made your selection you click one botton to install your choices. There's no worrying about dependencies, which hardly anyone knows about to begin with, and it's just another click to uninstall software. That's what the mass market wants.
Basicly what you're paying for is the hold-my-hand frontend and the privilidge of paying for commercial apps.
You don't have to pay to use CNR. The basic level is free and it allows you to install many FOSS packages. Now there is the paid service CNR Gold which offers discounts on commercial software like Crossover Linux, Win4Lin, and Cedega.
Their other promise requires debian to give up apt-get, red hat to give rpms and so on - when hell drops below absolute zero.
CNR has a utility that converts apt-get to the CNR install type, Debwrap. They also have several packages for rpms.
FalconI would consider myself an above-average user, but when I go to install something that's outside the scope of my repositories and get shot down by the dependency failures... that's when I get a little peeved.
If Linux standardised, I'd be sure to recommend it to my friends and family. Even the dumbest "For Dummies" distros aren't simple enough for Joe Bloggers to use.
That's a good thing about CNR, you don't have to worry about any dependencies. CNR does it all for you.
Falcon