Sure, but where do the lines get drawn? My tax return is between me and the IRS, and I don't expect THAT to become public information either. If I'd known it would be available like this, I'd have kept my money to myself.
Now in this case I could certainly see statistical information being available, such as how much $ is donated to which candidates/groups, from any given area, but I see no reason for personal information including my address and workplace to be included in here. Interestingly, my name doesn't show up in the FEC's database search - and their search does not include street addresses.
See, this is disturbing, how is this not an invasion of privacy? When I made my little contribution to [candidate] how was I to know that my personal info would end up in a publicly searchable database? That's nobody's business but me, the candidate, and the FEC. Seriously - how is this public information?
Thank you for the articulate response, which makes more sense than the earlier one:
The person who can tell the difference between the two is the most foolish creature on earth in my book.... A true grasp of this situation means you have no clue who you want to vote for because not a single candidate would make a good president.
I think you and I actually agree on some things though maybe for different reasons. Thing is, yes, the two candidates are in fact similar in a lot of ways, but to say there's no difference between them at all seems to me like willful ignorance. JMHO. Of course you're not required to vote for a candidate you don't like. I agree it would be foolish to believe either of them would make a great leader - I don't give a flying rat's ass about John Kerry, but I do think it's crucial to get Bush out. I shudder to consider how much bad policy they've held back on for fear of reelection, and how much more they could get away with in 4 more years and nothing to hold them back. Hell, odds are we'll lose a SC Justice before too long and if the repubs get to replace any, I truly fear for what's left of democracy. I agree the dems aren't much better when it comes down to it, but no one else could amass the power to defeat them in the next month and a half. I'd love to see a truly liberal/progressive 3rd party seriously take on the 2-party system and I'd like to think that could happen in the next few years. We're not quite there yet.
You can't ignore the problem forever and just play along with voting for less worse.
That's why I do whatever I am able to, from simply keeping informed, to discussing and debating with people, writing letters, signing petitions, supporting causes I believe in, and of course voting... I do wish I had the time to do more.
Bullshit. When faced with a no-win situation, you can still make the less-worse choice. There's nothing foolish about that. Sucks, I know, but that's the situation we're in.
So if you are driving along and another car is coming at you head-on, and your only real option is to swerve off into the ditch, are you really going to choose the head-on collision? Hell no, you make the less-worse choice.
Yeah, it's a shitty system but that happens to be how it works at the moment. If you don't like it, pick an issue like open debates, verified voting, or whatever floats your boat, and WORK on it. What point is there in bitching about it, if you're not working to change it?
I favor eliminating the possibility of winner-take-all, and setting up a system where each House vote is determined by popular vote within that district -- states still get to draw the district lines per census...
I agree but would add that the district-drawing is in desperate need of reform. Districts would be more fairly drawn based on an even distribution of population, period. Continuous, consolidated districts should replace the politically gerrymandered districts we have today. Most districts across the country are pretty solidly either Dem or Rep with very few "swing" districts at any given time. Term limits of, say, 10-12 years for Reps and 12-18 years for Senators would also reduce the concentration of power currently entrenched in the system. But of course, those currently in power would have to make these changes, which is about as likely as IRV or -gasp- paper voting records.
Still, if you think Nader "handed [Bush] the election in 2000" you are showing your own bias as well. The 50% of the electorate that didn't bother showing up to vote, provided the narrow margin that allowed Bush to walk away with his unearned victory. The shady officials that struck thousands of African-Americans from the eligible voter pool, contributed to the Democratic party's defeat. And of course Gore's own complacency in giving such a halfhearted campaign, provided no inspiration for the nonvoters to come out. Nader is just a convenient scapegoat.
Maybe you can help then? - I've been looking for a damn user review for almost a month now... how's the quality/simplicity of the voice recorder? That's the one factor making me lean toward this player as opposed to any other. The other players that include voice recorders are too big & pricey for my simple needs. I have no need for 20GB.
Now see, when I think of a photo mosaic, I think of cool stuff like THIS...
This "cloud" thing is kinda nifty, kinda goofy. Some of the images are crappy but the technique is interesting. Maybe it's a good idea that just needs expanding. You need better images to start with, if you want a better end result.
The type of connection is less relevant if your provider (Comcrap, for example) limits your upload speed. I'd bet downloading those 500 pics would have been much quicker simply because they allow it to be that way.
Exactly what I thought... however, at the end of the article they have this to say:
"Corals are still threatened by factors such as water pollution and damage caused by fishing. But most of these factors are easier to reverse than climate change, Baker points out, especially if conservation efforts are spurred on by the idea that corals are not doomed by global warming.
"We may have more time than we thought to put policies in place," he says. "But this argues for us really getting on top of the factors that we can control."
So, there is still a lot we can do to protect the ones that are surviving, rather than force them to try and adapt to further damage.
For overall growth you also have to consider activity... wouldn't t'rex burn a LOT more calories hunting than scavenging?? I'd think the info leans more toward supporting the idea of t'rex in all his fearsomeness, chasing away the hunters to move in on their kill.
Coming soon to a theater near you: Predator v. Scavenger! umm...
Well let's see. Elephants are born around 200 lbs and reach full size by age 20. Full size females are around 6-7000 lbs and males around 11-13000 lbs. So let's say 10,000 lbs (to facilitate simpler math) over 20 years (assuming steady growth, though it probably isn't) would be 500 lbs per year or 1.4 lb per day? I'd assume more of the growth would occur in the first few years since just about everything grows that way, so it may be more like 3-4 lbs per day in their youth. But I'm just speculating.
Draw your own conclusions.
Oh yeah hey, I almost forgot that "the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians... all of them who try to secularize America..." were the ones responsible for inviting the 9/11 attacks. Thanks for that blast from the past. What a dipshit.
Okay, I'll take the bait... legally speaking, here in the US, the courts and legislature DO define what free speech is, and what lines may be drawn to protect and/or limit it. And of COURSE the courts may determine whether laws are constitutional, so they are "above" it to some degree. That's the way the founders designed it. Now if free speech was absolutely untouchable, you'd never see issues of trademark, copyright, libel, indecency, obscenity, and so on. Whether that is Right or Wrong, you are certainly entitled to your opinion (and the right to express it!) but a fact's a fact.
Did you RTFA? Maybe there's more than one CERT... but this is pretty straightforward: "Hundreds of Web sites have been targeted by the virus, which exploits flaws in Microsoft Corp.'s Windows Internet software, according to an alert issued Thursday by the U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT), a division of the Department of Homeland Security."
that a division of Homeland Security would specifically suggest NOT using M$ product... Dammit, I don't want such doubt cast on the conspiracy theory that M$ is in cahoots with the gov't... this is seriously fucking up my whole worldview. Oh, the pain of cognitive dissonace!;-)
I for one would much rather see 20 more disgusting iterations of the Berg decapitation than another WTC disaster. The video was intended to send a message, which it did, effectively, stirring up controversy and discussion around the world. Which of COURSE is not to say that I condone such hideous... ughh... but we also need to be careful and honest about what we claim to be fighting for.
Communication via communication is always preferable to communication via mass destruction, is it not? You just made a great fucking argument for free speech.
Nasty, nasty, sick twisted and wrong and while such ACTIONS are undoubtedly deplorable...
TALKING about it is protected under the First Amendment and you have the right to ignore it. There's a lot of creepy shit out there but once you start censoring, where do you stop? How does one begin to define what is offensive? What is horribly offensive to you may be perfectly normal to me and vice versa. Don't start down that slippery slope, my friend.
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press... How much simpler could it be?
The internet by its very nature is not, and cannot be, under any government's jurisdiction to control content. Period. Let folks say what they want to say, and you always retain the freedom to read it or ignore it.
Oh, how I wish I knew the specifics. All I know is that when I'm confronted with functionality problems in the course of doing my job (benefit processing), I take my issue to the people who are supposed to know if it can be fixed. And most of the time they simply say, we haven't quite been able to figure out what this bug is or how to fix it. Or, we know exactly what the problem is and there's nothing we can do about it. Anything that could be fixed, they already did (so they say).
Makes me wonder sometimes, how well do they actually understand the code and how to tweak it? Or are they concerned that "fixing" one thing might fsck up something else? All I know is that two processes that are *supposedly* separate (benefits and retirement plans), shouldn't be adversely affecting each other. But somehow they do, and I've developed several workarounds to avoid and catch problems, but sadly for certain unfortunate faculty & staff, I have no way of ever catching them all.
I agree with you partially; lots of research & planning need to be done and you cannot expect everything to run the same as it did before. Absolutely.
However, when your organization is shelling out millions upon millions of dollars to replace old systems with new ones, isn't it reasonable to expect the new system to work better? Or at least that the new system can actually handle all the information the old system handled?
I should concede the fact that our migration to PS has, overall, gone well enough. My specific area has had innumerable problems with different processes affecting each other and just strange, unexplainable unfixable weirdness. People get kicked out of certain benefits for no apparent reason. And for many of these cases, we have NO way of knowing until the faculty/staff member calls us in (perfectly justified) anger.
They try to force the new software to behave much the same way as the legacy systems they are trying to replace. Somewhat true, but moreover, we expect the new software to behave in a way that makes sense!!
...Maybe that's the root of the problem after all. Hmmm.
Slashdot Mirror
Now in this case I could certainly see statistical information being available, such as how much $ is donated to which candidates/groups, from any given area, but I see no reason for personal information including my address and workplace to be included in here. Interestingly, my name doesn't show up in the FEC's database search - and their search does not include street addresses.
See, this is disturbing, how is this not an invasion of privacy? When I made my little contribution to [candidate] how was I to know that my personal info would end up in a publicly searchable database? That's nobody's business but me, the candidate, and the FEC. Seriously - how is this public information?
The person who can tell the difference between the two is the most foolish creature on earth in my book.... A true grasp of this situation means you have no clue who you want to vote for because not a single candidate would make a good president.
I think you and I actually agree on some things though maybe for different reasons. Thing is, yes, the two candidates are in fact similar in a lot of ways, but to say there's no difference between them at all seems to me like willful ignorance. JMHO. Of course you're not required to vote for a candidate you don't like. I agree it would be foolish to believe either of them would make a great leader - I don't give a flying rat's ass about John Kerry, but I do think it's crucial to get Bush out. I shudder to consider how much bad policy they've held back on for fear of reelection, and how much more they could get away with in 4 more years and nothing to hold them back. Hell, odds are we'll lose a SC Justice before too long and if the repubs get to replace any, I truly fear for what's left of democracy. I agree the dems aren't much better when it comes down to it, but no one else could amass the power to defeat them in the next month and a half. I'd love to see a truly liberal/progressive 3rd party seriously take on the 2-party system and I'd like to think that could happen in the next few years. We're not quite there yet.
You can't ignore the problem forever and just play along with voting for less worse.
That's why I do whatever I am able to, from simply keeping informed, to discussing and debating with people, writing letters, signing petitions, supporting causes I believe in, and of course voting... I do wish I had the time to do more.
So if you are driving along and another car is coming at you head-on, and your only real option is to swerve off into the ditch, are you really going to choose the head-on collision? Hell no, you make the less-worse choice.
Yeah, it's a shitty system but that happens to be how it works at the moment. If you don't like it, pick an issue like open debates, verified voting, or whatever floats your boat, and WORK on it. What point is there in bitching about it, if you're not working to change it?
I agree but would add that the district-drawing is in desperate need of reform. Districts would be more fairly drawn based on an even distribution of population, period. Continuous, consolidated districts should replace the politically gerrymandered districts we have today. Most districts across the country are pretty solidly either Dem or Rep with very few "swing" districts at any given time. Term limits of, say, 10-12 years for Reps and 12-18 years for Senators would also reduce the concentration of power currently entrenched in the system. But of course, those currently in power would have to make these changes, which is about as likely as IRV or -gasp- paper voting records.
Still, if you think Nader "handed [Bush] the election in 2000" you are showing your own bias as well. The 50% of the electorate that didn't bother showing up to vote, provided the narrow margin that allowed Bush to walk away with his unearned victory. The shady officials that struck thousands of African-Americans from the eligible voter pool, contributed to the Democratic party's defeat. And of course Gore's own complacency in giving such a halfhearted campaign, provided no inspiration for the nonvoters to come out. Nader is just a convenient scapegoat.
Maybe you can help then? - I've been looking for a damn user review for almost a month now... how's the quality/simplicity of the voice recorder? That's the one factor making me lean toward this player as opposed to any other. The other players that include voice recorders are too big & pricey for my simple needs. I have no need for 20GB.
This "cloud" thing is kinda nifty, kinda goofy. Some of the images are crappy but the technique is interesting. Maybe it's a good idea that just needs expanding. You need better images to start with, if you want a better end result.
The type of connection is less relevant if your provider (Comcrap, for example) limits your upload speed. I'd bet downloading those 500 pics would have been much quicker simply because they allow it to be that way.
Nah, just inversely proportional. Signal may increase, but noise increases more.
"Corals are still threatened by factors such as water pollution and damage caused by fishing. But most of these factors are easier to reverse than climate change, Baker points out, especially if conservation efforts are spurred on by the idea that corals are not doomed by global warming.
"We may have more time than we thought to put policies in place," he says. "But this argues for us really getting on top of the factors that we can control."
So, there is still a lot we can do to protect the ones that are surviving, rather than force them to try and adapt to further damage.
that makes more sense.
For overall growth you also have to consider activity... wouldn't t'rex burn a LOT more calories hunting than scavenging?? I'd think the info leans more toward supporting the idea of t'rex in all his fearsomeness, chasing away the hunters to move in on their kill.
Coming soon to a theater near you: Predator v. Scavenger! umm...
Well let's see. Elephants are born around 200 lbs and reach full size by age 20. Full size females are around 6-7000 lbs and males around 11-13000 lbs. So let's say 10,000 lbs (to facilitate simpler math) over 20 years (assuming steady growth, though it probably isn't) would be 500 lbs per year or 1.4 lb per day? I'd assume more of the growth would occur in the first few years since just about everything grows that way, so it may be more like 3-4 lbs per day in their youth. But I'm just speculating. Draw your own conclusions.
That's kind of a leap in your logic - omnivores eat both plants and animals. Do scavengers eat plants? Not necessarily.
Oh yeah hey, I almost forgot that "the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians... all of them who try to secularize America..." were the ones responsible for inviting the 9/11 attacks. Thanks for that blast from the past. What a dipshit.
Okay, I'll take the bait... legally speaking, here in the US, the courts and legislature DO define what free speech is, and what lines may be drawn to protect and/or limit it. And of COURSE the courts may determine whether laws are constitutional, so they are "above" it to some degree. That's the way the founders designed it. Now if free speech was absolutely untouchable, you'd never see issues of trademark, copyright, libel, indecency, obscenity, and so on. Whether that is Right or Wrong, you are certainly entitled to your opinion (and the right to express it!) but a fact's a fact.
Did you RTFA? Maybe there's more than one CERT... but this is pretty straightforward: "Hundreds of Web sites have been targeted by the virus, which exploits flaws in Microsoft Corp.'s Windows Internet software, according to an alert issued Thursday by the U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT), a division of the Department of Homeland Security."
that a division of Homeland Security would specifically suggest NOT using M$ product... Dammit, I don't want such doubt cast on the conspiracy theory that M$ is in cahoots with the gov't... this is seriously fucking up my whole worldview. Oh, the pain of cognitive dissonace! ;-)
Communication via communication is always preferable to communication via mass destruction, is it not? You just made a great fucking argument for free speech.
TALKING about it is protected under the First Amendment and you have the right to ignore it. There's a lot of creepy shit out there but once you start censoring, where do you stop? How does one begin to define what is offensive? What is horribly offensive to you may be perfectly normal to me and vice versa. Don't start down that slippery slope, my friend.
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press... How much simpler could it be?
The internet by its very nature is not, and cannot be, under any government's jurisdiction to control content. Period. Let folks say what they want to say, and you always retain the freedom to read it or ignore it.
We'll be deprived of our giving-back-rubs-that-put-your-lazy-ass-to-sleep privilege. Darn.
Oh, how I wish I knew the specifics. All I know is that when I'm confronted with functionality problems in the course of doing my job (benefit processing), I take my issue to the people who are supposed to know if it can be fixed. And most of the time they simply say, we haven't quite been able to figure out what this bug is or how to fix it. Or, we know exactly what the problem is and there's nothing we can do about it. Anything that could be fixed, they already did (so they say).
Makes me wonder sometimes, how well do they actually understand the code and how to tweak it? Or are they concerned that "fixing" one thing might fsck up something else? All I know is that two processes that are *supposedly* separate (benefits and retirement plans), shouldn't be adversely affecting each other. But somehow they do, and I've developed several workarounds to avoid and catch problems, but sadly for certain unfortunate faculty & staff, I have no way of ever catching them all.
However, when your organization is shelling out millions upon millions of dollars to replace old systems with new ones, isn't it reasonable to expect the new system to work better? Or at least that the new system can actually handle all the information the old system handled?
I should concede the fact that our migration to PS has, overall, gone well enough. My specific area has had innumerable problems with different processes affecting each other and just strange, unexplainable unfixable weirdness. People get kicked out of certain benefits for no apparent reason. And for many of these cases, we have NO way of knowing until the faculty/staff member calls us in (perfectly justified) anger.
They try to force the new software to behave much the same way as the legacy systems they are trying to replace. Somewhat true, but moreover, we expect the new software to behave in a way that makes sense!!