I've always been partial to Dodge trucks myself. While they've improved the looks over the years, in the "good old days" they were pretty ugly. But I cared more about how much you could beat the crap out of it, so it didn't really matter.
For what it's worth, I love your extension of my car analogy. I would have said the same thing a few years back, but there are distros (i.e. Mandriva) that have fixed most of these problems. So now the ignition wires really are connected in the right place.;-)
Mac OS X wouldn't be a great option for me, just like Windows isn't. I'm a server guy. Give me a solid OS with Apache, MySQL, and Postfix in a 1U cabinet and I'm happy. I do use a browser and email on my desktop. Call me old fashioned, but if I want to listen to music then I'll use a device built for that purpose (i.e. Turntable, 8-track tape player, AM radio, etc.)
I guess I'm just wondering why the attacks on Linux. It's a free (as in freedom) world out there and you can pick what you want. Slamming someone who doesn't share your "ideal" world seems kind of senseless. I think that the BSDs are great, and when they can step up and say "we have great device/application integration and put out regular security fixes in binary form" then I'll consider jumping on board. Until then, I'm not willing to spend the time and energy necessary to get what I perceive as a minor increase in technical strength.
To go tit-for-tat on the OS list, I've worked on Primos, VMS, RSX, AT&T Unix, VM/CMS, OS/2, DOS, CPM/MPM, DOS, Coherent, Windows (all kernels), FreeBSD, and Linux. I also had an Apple II, Commodore 64, and VIC-20.
Maybe Linux really isn't all it's cracked up to be.
What does this mean exactly? Is the goal of Linux to be the best "technically correct" OS, or is the goal of Linux to produce something that can be used by a wide variety of people?
Having lived in the world of Windows, BSDs and Linux, I finally settled on Linux because it has the highest "usefulness" factor for the kind of stuff I do. Windows is strong on media, but I don't care about that. BSDs are rock solid, but they don't have as strong a device or application support as Linux. For what I do, Linux is the right solution.
I'm just wondering what kind of car you drive? Ford, Chevy, Chrysler, or some other mass-produced car? I'm sure that there are car buffs out there that'll tell you that you're crazy if you don't drive the most technically correct vehicle, but for most people they're just trying to get to work every day and they need something reliable. They don't judge a car by lifting the hood and inspecting the parts, but whether the engine turns on when they turn the key.
What makes you think that they're insignificant? They have a pretty loyal following, and they're definitely better positioned for the consumer market than most distros available today. They virtually always show up in major distro lists.
Diversity is a great thing, but don't discount the value of standards. People want stuff that they can count on, and if Linux is really going to compete against Windows and the Mac then there needs to be a big push down that path. My ideal world is that there are a couple really big Linux vendors who cooperate on standards, and then a bunch of small guys doing customization for those who want/need it. The recent XFree86 fiasco shows that even an entrenched "vendor" can be booted pretty quickly if the community feels that their actions are counterproductive to the benefit of all.
California is already deep in the financial hole and this [Borders'] sort of petty cheating...
I'm not trying to justify Borders actions, but what ever happened to the concept of a state cutting its budget deficits by reducing spending? I have no sympathy for CA whatsoever because they put themselves into this hole. It's human behavior that people are more prone to take an illegal action as the stakes rise. It should be no surprise whatsoever that this type of thing is happening. Again, I'm not trying to defend it, but rather explain it.
I don't know how much Borders makes off of each of their businesses, but I'm wondering if there's ever a point where they say "screw it" and closes their brick and morter stores in that state. Sure would fix the nexus problem for them.
if you know it's a dupe, why is it still being re-reported?
If you know that it's a dupe, and you hate dupes, then why read it?
I get really tired of people complaining about dupes all the time. Yes, there are occasional dupes. Get over it! The fact is that the editors, like everyone else, are occasionally lazy or miss something. But that doesn't mean that there aren't really good reasons to revisit a story. New information from new sources is a really good reason. The fact that they acknowledge that the story has been discussed before means that there's some new twist that they want us to see. Or are you suggesting that they'd knowingly repost a story with no new info? Have they crossed the line from being lazy to having some nefarious purpose?
Dupes are like trolls - it depends on how you look at them. What's insightful to one person is a troll to another.
Hey, I went to college and I quit my company so I could stay at home and write code and watch TV in my sweat pants. I've been thinking about getting a PhD so that I never have to leave the house again. It seems that me and Michael have something in common, although I n3v3r figured out that l33t thing.
but how in the world (or outside the world) can you test fixing a wing on a space shuttle?
Get rid of the wings. There are many designs that don't rely on wings that have nearly the same maneuverability as does the shuttle with much greater overall reliability. Is it any wonder that the Russians are the only nation with a regular spaceflight capability when what they're flying is essentially a sphere?
NASA needs to recognize that, despite its technical sophistication, the shuttle is too dangerous to operate.
Actually, it's the "technical sophistication" that's the problem here. We make this stuff too hard to fly. If you look at this history of the program, the shuttle got it's initial funding because it was thought that it could fly every conceivable mission. That's like saying that you need a car that can carry people, haul dirt, and move cargo. Sorry, but we build different land-based vehicles for different tasks, so why not for space?
Personally, I find it interesting that most of the new designs on the board look like Max Faget's old Mercury design. KISS rocked in those days. If we could fly to the moon on barely more computing power than is in the watch on my wrist, do we really need all this sophistication to get to LEO?
I am no longer interested in continuing this conversation, since it has stooped to this highly insulting level.
I'm sorry you feel this way. I really am. I thought that we were getting somewhere in the discussion. My goal wasn't to force you to believe in anything, but rather to give you insight into how Christians today think and why we are so active in politics. My attempted explanation was not intended to insult you. I truly believed that if this was an intellectual conversation then we should be able to put the truth as we each see it on the table. I accepted your criticism of Bush for what it was worth - a reasoned attempt to understand what is happening in politics today. Are you not willing to extend the same courtesy to me?
"only Christian right-wingers can be good"
This is far from what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that we're all sinners and that we all need Jesus Christ for our salvation. Most Christians believe that they are sinful by their very nature and that it's only God's influence in their lives that allows them to do any good. This doesn't mean that we still don't sin. I do it every day.
I believe Jesus taught this, that it is something personal and private.
If He did then He sure had a funny way of showing it. I believe that his crucifixion was a very public event. He also never advocated the destruction on the Temple as a public place of worship. While Jesus did have his private moments, much of his ministry was in full public view. (In your defense, He did resist from using the law as a means to change people's behavior. I believe as Jesus did, that it takes a change of heart to effect real change in a person.)
Well, all I can do at this point is wish God's blessings on you for the future. If you ever want to pick up the conversation again then I'm only a "Submit" button away.:-)
So let me ask you a question - Are you mad at Bush, or are you mad a what Bush represents?
Even if you think that Bush stole the 2000 and 2004 elections, you'd still have to admit that nearly 1/2 of the country feels strongly enough about the guy to vote in favor of him and his policies (or vote against Gore/Kerry). Assuming that no one voted under duress, doesn't that say something about how our society feels about these issues?
I've come to the conclusion that a lot of what you're seeing when it comes to Christians asserting themselves in politics is a reaction to the political situation they have found themselves in over the last 50 years. We lost on school prayer and abortion, and now we're losing on posting the Ten Commandments and the marriage issue. In King County, WA, where I live, the county has passed an ordinance banning buildings over 10,000 square feet in rural areas unless they are run by the county. This clearly impacts our ability to build and run churches. I'm generally not paranoid when it comes to rulemaking, but you have to admit that there's something fishy about this when the county plays by its own set of rules.
Does it surprise you then that Christians have an agenda, or that they are engaged in political debate? After all, we left politics alone for so many years and see where it got us? Many Christians don't want to see our rights eroded further, while some want to go back to the way things used to be. I'd say I fall somewhere in between.
I'd like you to consider one thing - I agree that people came to the US to escape religious oppression, but I disagree that they came to escape religion. Most immigrant groups came with their religious views intact. They just wanted to have the freedom to chose what they believed. I don't know anyone personally (Republican or Democrat) that thinks that people should be forced into believing in God. Even the Bible doesn't teach that. But when does your right not to be offended usurp my right to worship freely? Should I have been jailed today for praying over my meal in a public restaurant if someone felt offended by my actions?
Something I'd like you to consider as well - That the vast majority of our law has its roots in the Bible. No murder, stealing, or lying in court for a start. Unless you're absolutely crazy, I can't imagine that you're want to repeal these. Yet when I hear "freedom FROM religion" then that's what I think you're saying. If you want to pick and chose the stuff you like then I have no problem with that, but if you're going to be intellectually honest then you have to admit that you're benefiting from religion as well and that it might be worth keeping.
Well, anyway, I'd really like to hear your answer about whether you hate Bush or the people that Bush represents. If you really just hate Bush as an individual then we'll replace him in a few more years with someone else who still represents our values but doesn't speak with a fake Texas drawl.;-)
Not through my whole house. We're talking about feeding seven devices simultaneously, in effect becoming a private CATV operator. If I need to spend $1,000 to replace TVs and VCRs, I'd rather keep what I got an feed it from a central location. Having another device hanging off my TV just means another remote control to get lost in the cushions of the sofa. I'm also trashing a bunch of good equipment which isn't exactly great for the environment. I haven't seen any recycling programs being advertised to go along with this change.
The reason that I haven't said what I like about Bush is that I'm waiting for you to find one kind word about the guy, but your refuse to do this. You make up stuff like "I never met the guy". Well, I never met you either, but I've already said nice things about you like acknowledging that you're smart. It's pretty obvious that you've thought a lot about these and can articulate your position well. You also have a passion for politics. Those are admirable traits.
So you want some specific about the President that I like? Let me pick a big one - his constant articulation of the ideal that everyone should live in freedom. If you don't like the Iraq war then that's just fine by me, but does then mean that you think that it's perfectly fine for people to live in fear of their government and their lives? Can you agree with Bush that Saddam Hussein was a tryant? I'm not looking for you to say that you thought that he had to be removed from power, but can't we at least agree that it's a really bad thing when hundreds or thousands of people are getting killed on a regular basis by their government? If we can agree on this then we can at least start looking for a solution to the problem.
It seems to me that by saying that you can't find one good thing about Bush then what you're really saying is that you believe in the exact opposite of what he does. You believe in government sanctioned torture. You do not believe in freedom of worship. You believe that the US is a terrible country. This would be the exact opposite of what George Bush says he believes in. I really don't believe that's what you intend.
I suspect that deep down, you and George Bush have a lot in common. Really! You both value our country (in different ways) and you both believe in the cause of freedom (but believe there are different ways to achieve the goal). At least if you can admit that much then there's a starting point for a conversation.
For what it's worth, here's how I feel about Bush and his policies:
I expressed grave concern before the Iraq War as to whether it was right to invade another country. After watching Colin Powell's presentation to the UN on WMD, I felt that it was a good call. I trusted Powell more than Bush, because I thought that the President had a vested interest in seeing Saddam removed from power. (The "He tried to kill my dad" thing.) My hope is that we can now find a way to install a stable, democratic government in Bagdad.
It was right to invade Afghanistan. We had lots of evidence against bin Laden, and since the government there was unwilling to cooperate then it was time to go get him. I hope that we catch Mr. bin Laden soon, but I understand that this can be a very difficult task. It took the US government five years to catch the abortion clinic bomber (i.e. terrorist) and that was on US soil with US resources.
I'd like to see a broader discussion about what to do on Social Security. I believe what most American's believe and that Congressional statistics say - that the trust fund is going to run dry. I would prefer an option for private accounts, but I have deep concerns about how they would be funded without bankrupting the system even earlier. But I also believe that people should have the right to control their own accounts to seek a better return on their investment. If someone wants to play in the stock market and lose their retirement account then they can spend the rest of their life eating dog food because of their mistakes. That's what capitalism is all about.
I appreciate the fact that our President sets an example for the rest of the nation that it's ok to worship. I know that some people are concerned that by being a Christian that he's somehow excluding Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and other major faith groups. I don't share those concerns. Even within Christianity there are many different practices, but I never felt uncomfortable that Kennedy (a Catholic), Carter (a Baptist), or George H.W. Bush (an Episcopalian) he
I agree that this is a good idea because there's only a limited amount of RF spectrum and TV eats up a big chunk that could be put to better use. What I'm concerned about is the apparent lack of options for those of us who have lots of TVs but none that are digital. I have to replace 4 TVs, even though one is virtually brand new and the others are still going strong. That doesn't count the tuners in my 3 VCRs that will be worthless too. What I'd like to see is a transverter box of some kind that I can hang off my antenna that will shift the frequencies received back into the normal TV band and convert from digital to analog (which would technically not make it a transverter, but you get my drift). Has anyone seen anything like this on the market?
Sorry I didn't get it. It followed a long list of complaints, so I took it seriously. Does that mean that the rest of the stuff was a joke too?;-)
EU thing... This does not mean it's not going to happen
Care to make it interesting? I'd be willing to wager a gentleman's bet that it won't happen. The whole of the EU has 2 years to ratify the constitution from October 29, 2004. So they've got a little over a year to get things fixed. According to an article on Yahoo, all 25 nations have to accept the new constitution and it "cannot be renegotiated".
Well, so far... even a Bush supporter as yourself has only come up with "he's been married for all these years" as a reason to like him. Sorry, but that's absolutely ridiculous!
Oh, I can think of lots of reasons to like him. I was looking for just one thing that you might agree with. I'd love to hear you say "I like President Bush because..." Is that really so hard to do?
You chastise me for making a "personal" comment about the front he puts forward, then you bring up something FAR MORE personal as a reason to like him? You're sounding like a troll again.
I'm a troll for trying to find something nice about someone? You might find this hard to believe, but I was *really* pissed off by my Republican friends when they started to attack Bill Clinton on his character. While I believed that Clinton committed a crime by lying under oath in a civil deposition, I didn't think that it was appropriate to vilify him personally as some were prone to do. If people had tried to look for something good in him then maybe they'd have been a little less critical of him. Yes, he can be a big screw-up at times, but I don't think that he's the demon that some would have you believe he is.
Oh, and I never said I didn't like the U.S. - in fact I said quite the opposite
Um, where? I reread all of your previous posts and didn't see a single pro-US statement. Did I miss something? I figured with all the complaining that you were ready to bail. That's the way most of these threads go - "I hate the US and I'm leaving". My apologies for assuming that you fell into this group.
Man, you are one bitter dude. Can't you even respect the guy for being faithfully married to the same woman for all these years and raising two beautiful girls? Or do you hate President Bush so much that you can't respect a single thing that he's done?
I'd suggest you check your facts a little closer before posting them. The EU Constitution is in big trouble after being recently rejected by both the French and Dutch. The Germans are talking about dumping the Euro and moving back to the Mark. There are huge struggles with religion in Europe as well. You might not like the US, but I'm not sure that Europe is exactly as great as you'd like to think it is.
If you want to pick on the Bush policies then you're welcomed to do that. But when you pick on the man himself ("cheesey western accent") then you're just proving that you're hatred isn't for the policies but for the man. By doing this you join the likes of Rush Limbaugh who use attempt to use humiliation to make themselves look better. Put your facts on the table and let them speak for themselves, otherwise people will stop listening to your arguments.
I think that you're a smart guy - really. But either you're really paranoid or an elitist. I think that it's probably the second since you make statements like "I'm complaining in the hope that some people will actually wake up and stop living in the fantasy land idea of what this country is that their government sells them." In other words, "The rest of you all are so stupid that you can't see what is so obvious to me." Forgive me for being frank, but I've heard this bullshit all my life from people who think that they know better than everyone else. Try being humble for a minute and admit that someone other than you might be smart too.
I hope that you'll choose to stick it out for a while. There really are a lot of great people in this country. You'll only be losing out if you choose to leave.
But then I realized you are either a troll or have a big "W" sticker on the back of your full-size 7MPG SUV
Actually, it's a "Support our Troops" sticker on the back of my full-size, 7MPG Dodge Pickup truck. I also watch NASCAR and defend the right to bear arms.
... especially Space.com - WTF?
You obviously have NO sense of humor
I suppose you also think that Bush supports our troops, eh?... Where's the news publication of that?
I think that it was buried somewhere underneath the story of local mothers showing up at military recruiting centers saying "Not my kid" when the recruiters are just trying to do their job.
I find it interesting that you try to paint anyone who doesn't buy into your view of the world as being a troll. But that just ain't the case in most circumstances. Yes, I like George Bush (x2), but I also have a measure of admiration for Bill Clinton. He certainly had more fiscal discipline that either of the Bushes. I really liked Jimmy Carter, even though his policies promoted high levels of inflation. (To his defense, he inherited some of this from Nixon/Ford.) What made Carter a great President wasn't his policies, but rather his ability to stand up for what he thought was right regardless of the pressure. I have to respect a man who follows his heart and not the latest poll numbers.
I'd encourage you to think of one thing that you like about our current President. And not some backhanded comment like "He doesn't clip his toenails in public". Make it something substantive. If you can't think of a single thing that you like about him then I'd suggest that you're not looking at the situation realistically. If you can then maybe you can find some common ground on which to build an open dialog.
What, by the way, would you suggest I do about it besides complain?
How about any or all of the following:
Find a candidate you like and volunteer for his/her campaign. Tell all your friends to vote for them. Campaign as hard as you can.
Find a candidate you like and give them money. Tell all your friends to give them money. Hold a fundraiser at your home, just like all the rich people do.
Volunteer to become an election monitor. Report any problems to the Elections department and to your local news media.
Campaign for election reform. If allowed by law, sponsor a citizen's initiative to clean up the system. (You can do that in the state of Washington.)
Run for elected office on a "clean up the system" platform
Run for elections commissioner. Once elected, fire all the staff and start fresh.
Become a respected news reporter, search for dirt, and print it.
Start a newspaper or blog. Print your accusations and back them with hard evidence.
No, they had to rely on stats because the Judge told them that was the only way they could try to make their case.
Actually, the judge was very skeptical about this. He basically said "I'll let you try to convince me, but the burden of proof is very high". I think that the judge did this only because he wanted to allow the Republicans the air time to make their case. We all know what would happen if we relied on stats to determine elections.
Since both parties engage in it, neither party wants to do anything about it.
So vote for a third party candidate then.
Since the ballots are secret...
So let's get rid of the secret ballot. I guess I've never understood why this is necessary.
it is proven many times
Proven by whom? It seems to me that even this judge said that hard evidence was not available.
manufactured... votes
You have proof of this, or do you just suspect that this was the case?
For as much as I wanted to see Dino win, we have to abide by the law. If you don't think that it's working then do something about it other than complain.
Re:What ever happened making every vote count?
on
WA Governor Race Ends
·
· Score: 1
Botox - What the hell does this mean?
Botox is now being taxed with a "sin tax" in the same way that cigarettes and liquor are. Last I knew, Tacoma was still trying to outlaw smoking in public establishments, as though it were a crime to smoke. (For the record, I stopped smoking 20 years ago and I hate it. But I don't have a "right" to go into a smoke-free bar. If they want my business then they have to provide me with a smoke-free environment.)
they need to start actually picking specific gov't services to cut, instead of just bellyaching about generalities.
I'm all over user fees. Want to drive on a new road then pay a toll. What sold me on the $30 tabs was that much of my car tab money was being diverted to other purposes, like public transportation and police/fire services. If you want the stuff then pay for it directly. I'd gladly pay $5/trip to get into and out of Seattle if I didn't have to sit in rush hour traffic.
Just borrow the money and let your grandkids pay! BushCo has shown us the way.
I totally agree. Being a conservative, I just don't understand this whole deficit spending logic of the current administration. But I hope you'll agree with me that the same holds true for the Social Security Trust Fund. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.
E-voting scandal? There's an e-voting scandal? That's news to me. I haven't seen it on CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, PBS, or Space.com.
Give me a break. Anytime anybody uses the term "gate" in something political like VoterGate, it's meant to invoke memories of Watergate. The sad fact is that Watergate was truly an American tragedy. Richard Nixon was a sitting President who abused the power of his office to win an election. He was an amazing individual who let the power go to his head and destroyed an otherwise great career.
VoterGate is nonsense, although I really like their "Take Action" section minus the paper ballot comment and the link to BlackBoxVoting.org. There's a lot of really useful stuff there. Perhaps if you took the time to observe an election then you'd feel better about its outcome. Better yet, lobby to get rid of the secret election so that people can directly challenge the results if they find that their vote was incorrectly counted.
Slashdot Mirror
I've always been partial to Dodge trucks myself. While they've improved the looks over the years, in the "good old days" they were pretty ugly. But I cared more about how much you could beat the crap out of it, so it didn't really matter.
For what it's worth, I love your extension of my car analogy. I would have said the same thing a few years back, but there are distros (i.e. Mandriva) that have fixed most of these problems. So now the ignition wires really are connected in the right place. ;-)
Mac OS X wouldn't be a great option for me, just like Windows isn't. I'm a server guy. Give me a solid OS with Apache, MySQL, and Postfix in a 1U cabinet and I'm happy. I do use a browser and email on my desktop. Call me old fashioned, but if I want to listen to music then I'll use a device built for that purpose (i.e. Turntable, 8-track tape player, AM radio, etc.)
I guess I'm just wondering why the attacks on Linux. It's a free (as in freedom) world out there and you can pick what you want. Slamming someone who doesn't share your "ideal" world seems kind of senseless. I think that the BSDs are great, and when they can step up and say "we have great device/application integration and put out regular security fixes in binary form" then I'll consider jumping on board. Until then, I'm not willing to spend the time and energy necessary to get what I perceive as a minor increase in technical strength.
To go tit-for-tat on the OS list, I've worked on Primos, VMS, RSX, AT&T Unix, VM/CMS, OS/2, DOS, CPM/MPM, DOS, Coherent, Windows (all kernels), FreeBSD, and Linux. I also had an Apple II, Commodore 64, and VIC-20.
This article wasn't about how Linus hates the BSDs. In fact, I remember reading some rather positive comments from him the other day about FreeBSD.
What does this mean exactly? Is the goal of Linux to be the best "technically correct" OS, or is the goal of Linux to produce something that can be used by a wide variety of people?
Having lived in the world of Windows, BSDs and Linux, I finally settled on Linux because it has the highest "usefulness" factor for the kind of stuff I do. Windows is strong on media, but I don't care about that. BSDs are rock solid, but they don't have as strong a device or application support as Linux. For what I do, Linux is the right solution.
I'm just wondering what kind of car you drive? Ford, Chevy, Chrysler, or some other mass-produced car? I'm sure that there are car buffs out there that'll tell you that you're crazy if you don't drive the most technically correct vehicle, but for most people they're just trying to get to work every day and they need something reliable. They don't judge a car by lifting the hood and inspecting the parts, but whether the engine turns on when they turn the key.
What makes you think that they're insignificant? They have a pretty loyal following, and they're definitely better positioned for the consumer market than most distros available today. They virtually always show up in major distro lists.
Diversity is a great thing, but don't discount the value of standards. People want stuff that they can count on, and if Linux is really going to compete against Windows and the Mac then there needs to be a big push down that path. My ideal world is that there are a couple really big Linux vendors who cooperate on standards, and then a bunch of small guys doing customization for those who want/need it. The recent XFree86 fiasco shows that even an entrenched "vendor" can be booted pretty quickly if the community feels that their actions are counterproductive to the benefit of all.
I'm not trying to justify Borders actions, but what ever happened to the concept of a state cutting its budget deficits by reducing spending? I have no sympathy for CA whatsoever because they put themselves into this hole. It's human behavior that people are more prone to take an illegal action as the stakes rise. It should be no surprise whatsoever that this type of thing is happening. Again, I'm not trying to defend it, but rather explain it.
I don't know how much Borders makes off of each of their businesses, but I'm wondering if there's ever a point where they say "screw it" and closes their brick and morter stores in that state. Sure would fix the nexus problem for them.
If you know that it's a dupe, and you hate dupes, then why read it?
I get really tired of people complaining about dupes all the time. Yes, there are occasional dupes. Get over it! The fact is that the editors, like everyone else, are occasionally lazy or miss something. But that doesn't mean that there aren't really good reasons to revisit a story. New information from new sources is a really good reason. The fact that they acknowledge that the story has been discussed before means that there's some new twist that they want us to see. Or are you suggesting that they'd knowingly repost a story with no new info? Have they crossed the line from being lazy to having some nefarious purpose?
Dupes are like trolls - it depends on how you look at them. What's insightful to one person is a troll to another.
Or perhaps it is *you* who should attend grammar class. The spelling is correct. It's the word usage that's incorrect.
Hey, I went to college and I quit my company so I could stay at home and write code and watch TV in my sweat pants. I've been thinking about getting a PhD so that I never have to leave the house again. It seems that me and Michael have something in common, although I n3v3r figured out that l33t thing.
Get rid of the wings. There are many designs that don't rely on wings that have nearly the same maneuverability as does the shuttle with much greater overall reliability. Is it any wonder that the Russians are the only nation with a regular spaceflight capability when what they're flying is essentially a sphere?
Actually, it's the "technical sophistication" that's the problem here. We make this stuff too hard to fly. If you look at this history of the program, the shuttle got it's initial funding because it was thought that it could fly every conceivable mission. That's like saying that you need a car that can carry people, haul dirt, and move cargo. Sorry, but we build different land-based vehicles for different tasks, so why not for space?
Personally, I find it interesting that most of the new designs on the board look like Max Faget's old Mercury design. KISS rocked in those days. If we could fly to the moon on barely more computing power than is in the watch on my wrist, do we really need all this sophistication to get to LEO?
I'm sorry you feel this way. I really am. I thought that we were getting somewhere in the discussion. My goal wasn't to force you to believe in anything, but rather to give you insight into how Christians today think and why we are so active in politics. My attempted explanation was not intended to insult you. I truly believed that if this was an intellectual conversation then we should be able to put the truth as we each see it on the table. I accepted your criticism of Bush for what it was worth - a reasoned attempt to understand what is happening in politics today. Are you not willing to extend the same courtesy to me?
"only Christian right-wingers can be good"
This is far from what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that we're all sinners and that we all need Jesus Christ for our salvation. Most Christians believe that they are sinful by their very nature and that it's only God's influence in their lives that allows them to do any good. This doesn't mean that we still don't sin. I do it every day.
I believe Jesus taught this, that it is something personal and private.
If He did then He sure had a funny way of showing it. I believe that his crucifixion was a very public event. He also never advocated the destruction on the Temple as a public place of worship. While Jesus did have his private moments, much of his ministry was in full public view. (In your defense, He did resist from using the law as a means to change people's behavior. I believe as Jesus did, that it takes a change of heart to effect real change in a person.)
Well, all I can do at this point is wish God's blessings on you for the future. If you ever want to pick up the conversation again then I'm only a "Submit" button away. :-)
True, but did you notice that the North Pole left Canada silently?
Even if you think that Bush stole the 2000 and 2004 elections, you'd still have to admit that nearly 1/2 of the country feels strongly enough about the guy to vote in favor of him and his policies (or vote against Gore/Kerry). Assuming that no one voted under duress, doesn't that say something about how our society feels about these issues?
I've come to the conclusion that a lot of what you're seeing when it comes to Christians asserting themselves in politics is a reaction to the political situation they have found themselves in over the last 50 years. We lost on school prayer and abortion, and now we're losing on posting the Ten Commandments and the marriage issue. In King County, WA, where I live, the county has passed an ordinance banning buildings over 10,000 square feet in rural areas unless they are run by the county. This clearly impacts our ability to build and run churches. I'm generally not paranoid when it comes to rulemaking, but you have to admit that there's something fishy about this when the county plays by its own set of rules.
Does it surprise you then that Christians have an agenda, or that they are engaged in political debate? After all, we left politics alone for so many years and see where it got us? Many Christians don't want to see our rights eroded further, while some want to go back to the way things used to be. I'd say I fall somewhere in between.
I'd like you to consider one thing - I agree that people came to the US to escape religious oppression, but I disagree that they came to escape religion. Most immigrant groups came with their religious views intact. They just wanted to have the freedom to chose what they believed. I don't know anyone personally (Republican or Democrat) that thinks that people should be forced into believing in God. Even the Bible doesn't teach that. But when does your right not to be offended usurp my right to worship freely? Should I have been jailed today for praying over my meal in a public restaurant if someone felt offended by my actions?
Something I'd like you to consider as well - That the vast majority of our law has its roots in the Bible. No murder, stealing, or lying in court for a start. Unless you're absolutely crazy, I can't imagine that you're want to repeal these. Yet when I hear "freedom FROM religion" then that's what I think you're saying. If you want to pick and chose the stuff you like then I have no problem with that, but if you're going to be intellectually honest then you have to admit that you're benefiting from religion as well and that it might be worth keeping.
Well, anyway, I'd really like to hear your answer about whether you hate Bush or the people that Bush represents. If you really just hate Bush as an individual then we'll replace him in a few more years with someone else who still represents our values but doesn't speak with a fake Texas drawl. ;-)
Not through my whole house. We're talking about feeding seven devices simultaneously, in effect becoming a private CATV operator. If I need to spend $1,000 to replace TVs and VCRs, I'd rather keep what I got an feed it from a central location. Having another device hanging off my TV just means another remote control to get lost in the cushions of the sofa. I'm also trashing a bunch of good equipment which isn't exactly great for the environment. I haven't seen any recycling programs being advertised to go along with this change.
So you want some specific about the President that I like? Let me pick a big one - his constant articulation of the ideal that everyone should live in freedom. If you don't like the Iraq war then that's just fine by me, but does then mean that you think that it's perfectly fine for people to live in fear of their government and their lives? Can you agree with Bush that Saddam Hussein was a tryant? I'm not looking for you to say that you thought that he had to be removed from power, but can't we at least agree that it's a really bad thing when hundreds or thousands of people are getting killed on a regular basis by their government? If we can agree on this then we can at least start looking for a solution to the problem.
It seems to me that by saying that you can't find one good thing about Bush then what you're really saying is that you believe in the exact opposite of what he does. You believe in government sanctioned torture. You do not believe in freedom of worship. You believe that the US is a terrible country. This would be the exact opposite of what George Bush says he believes in. I really don't believe that's what you intend.
I suspect that deep down, you and George Bush have a lot in common. Really! You both value our country (in different ways) and you both believe in the cause of freedom (but believe there are different ways to achieve the goal). At least if you can admit that much then there's a starting point for a conversation.
For what it's worth, here's how I feel about Bush and his policies:
I agree that this is a good idea because there's only a limited amount of RF spectrum and TV eats up a big chunk that could be put to better use. What I'm concerned about is the apparent lack of options for those of us who have lots of TVs but none that are digital. I have to replace 4 TVs, even though one is virtually brand new and the others are still going strong. That doesn't count the tuners in my 3 VCRs that will be worthless too. What I'd like to see is a transverter box of some kind that I can hang off my antenna that will shift the frequencies received back into the normal TV band and convert from digital to analog (which would technically not make it a transverter, but you get my drift). Has anyone seen anything like this on the market?
Sorry I didn't get it. It followed a long list of complaints, so I took it seriously. Does that mean that the rest of the stuff was a joke too? ;-)
EU thing... This does not mean it's not going to happen
Care to make it interesting? I'd be willing to wager a gentleman's bet that it won't happen. The whole of the EU has 2 years to ratify the constitution from October 29, 2004. So they've got a little over a year to get things fixed. According to an article on Yahoo, all 25 nations have to accept the new constitution and it "cannot be renegotiated".
Well, so far... even a Bush supporter as yourself has only come up with "he's been married for all these years" as a reason to like him. Sorry, but that's absolutely ridiculous!
Oh, I can think of lots of reasons to like him. I was looking for just one thing that you might agree with. I'd love to hear you say "I like President Bush because..." Is that really so hard to do?
You chastise me for making a "personal" comment about the front he puts forward, then you bring up something FAR MORE personal as a reason to like him? You're sounding like a troll again.
I'm a troll for trying to find something nice about someone? You might find this hard to believe, but I was *really* pissed off by my Republican friends when they started to attack Bill Clinton on his character. While I believed that Clinton committed a crime by lying under oath in a civil deposition, I didn't think that it was appropriate to vilify him personally as some were prone to do. If people had tried to look for something good in him then maybe they'd have been a little less critical of him. Yes, he can be a big screw-up at times, but I don't think that he's the demon that some would have you believe he is.
Oh, and I never said I didn't like the U.S. - in fact I said quite the opposite
Um, where? I reread all of your previous posts and didn't see a single pro-US statement. Did I miss something? I figured with all the complaining that you were ready to bail. That's the way most of these threads go - "I hate the US and I'm leaving". My apologies for assuming that you fell into this group.
I'd suggest you check your facts a little closer before posting them. The EU Constitution is in big trouble after being recently rejected by both the French and Dutch. The Germans are talking about dumping the Euro and moving back to the Mark. There are huge struggles with religion in Europe as well. You might not like the US, but I'm not sure that Europe is exactly as great as you'd like to think it is.
If you want to pick on the Bush policies then you're welcomed to do that. But when you pick on the man himself ("cheesey western accent") then you're just proving that you're hatred isn't for the policies but for the man. By doing this you join the likes of Rush Limbaugh who use attempt to use humiliation to make themselves look better. Put your facts on the table and let them speak for themselves, otherwise people will stop listening to your arguments.
I hope that you'll choose to stick it out for a while. There really are a lot of great people in this country. You'll only be losing out if you choose to leave.
Actually, it's a "Support our Troops" sticker on the back of my full-size, 7MPG Dodge Pickup truck. I also watch NASCAR and defend the right to bear arms.
You obviously have NO sense of humor
I suppose you also think that Bush supports our troops, eh? ... Where's the news publication of that?
I think that it was buried somewhere underneath the story of local mothers showing up at military recruiting centers saying "Not my kid" when the recruiters are just trying to do their job.
I find it interesting that you try to paint anyone who doesn't buy into your view of the world as being a troll. But that just ain't the case in most circumstances. Yes, I like George Bush (x2), but I also have a measure of admiration for Bill Clinton. He certainly had more fiscal discipline that either of the Bushes. I really liked Jimmy Carter, even though his policies promoted high levels of inflation. (To his defense, he inherited some of this from Nixon/Ford.) What made Carter a great President wasn't his policies, but rather his ability to stand up for what he thought was right regardless of the pressure. I have to respect a man who follows his heart and not the latest poll numbers.
I'd encourage you to think of one thing that you like about our current President. And not some backhanded comment like "He doesn't clip his toenails in public". Make it something substantive. If you can't think of a single thing that you like about him then I'd suggest that you're not looking at the situation realistically. If you can then maybe you can find some common ground on which to build an open dialog.
How about any or all of the following:
Actually, the judge was very skeptical about this. He basically said "I'll let you try to convince me, but the burden of proof is very high". I think that the judge did this only because he wanted to allow the Republicans the air time to make their case. We all know what would happen if we relied on stats to determine elections.
Since both parties engage in it, neither party wants to do anything about it.
So vote for a third party candidate then.
Since the ballots are secret...
So let's get rid of the secret ballot. I guess I've never understood why this is necessary.
it is proven many times
Proven by whom? It seems to me that even this judge said that hard evidence was not available.
manufactured ... votes
You have proof of this, or do you just suspect that this was the case?
For as much as I wanted to see Dino win, we have to abide by the law. If you don't think that it's working then do something about it other than complain.
Botox is now being taxed with a "sin tax" in the same way that cigarettes and liquor are. Last I knew, Tacoma was still trying to outlaw smoking in public establishments, as though it were a crime to smoke. (For the record, I stopped smoking 20 years ago and I hate it. But I don't have a "right" to go into a smoke-free bar. If they want my business then they have to provide me with a smoke-free environment.)
they need to start actually picking specific gov't services to cut, instead of just bellyaching about generalities.
I'm all over user fees. Want to drive on a new road then pay a toll. What sold me on the $30 tabs was that much of my car tab money was being diverted to other purposes, like public transportation and police/fire services. If you want the stuff then pay for it directly. I'd gladly pay $5/trip to get into and out of Seattle if I didn't have to sit in rush hour traffic.
Just borrow the money and let your grandkids pay! BushCo has shown us the way.
I totally agree. Being a conservative, I just don't understand this whole deficit spending logic of the current administration. But I hope you'll agree with me that the same holds true for the Social Security Trust Fund. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.
Give me a break. Anytime anybody uses the term "gate" in something political like VoterGate, it's meant to invoke memories of Watergate. The sad fact is that Watergate was truly an American tragedy. Richard Nixon was a sitting President who abused the power of his office to win an election. He was an amazing individual who let the power go to his head and destroyed an otherwise great career.
VoterGate is nonsense, although I really like their "Take Action" section minus the paper ballot comment and the link to BlackBoxVoting.org. There's a lot of really useful stuff there. Perhaps if you took the time to observe an election then you'd feel better about its outcome. Better yet, lobby to get rid of the secret election so that people can directly challenge the results if they find that their vote was incorrectly counted.