The Libertarian party wants to take these things out of the hands of the government and put them back where they belong.. Into your hands.
Essentially, Libertarians would hand economics over to the big businesses, not into *my* hands. Big businesses are willing to accept long-term destruction for short-term gain. Unfettered big business *bad* for people, and for society, not good.
I'd rather have stupid laws that rampant corporatism. Unfortunately, we now have both.
Right on. It seems that all these people who complain would rather see your children dead then let the government do its job (protecting your freedom).
"Heh. Seems you got some freedom that needs protecktin' there, Joe. It sure ain't safe out here in the open air, no-siree. Howsabout I take that there freedom and place it in a nice, safe box for you, so's none of them terrorists can get at it? You know them terrorists are hidin' everywhere. EVERYwhere. THERE'S ONE NOW! Under that bush. He almost got your freedom.
"I better take that freedom from you. To make it safe, you know."
In the US, more people die from AIDs than from terrorist attacks by an order of magnitude, but I don't see the government spending *nearly* the same amount of money trying to stop AIDs as they do trying to stop terrorists. More people are killed by their spouses than by terrorists here in the states. Should we outlaw marriage?
Stop being a pussy. The world is a tough place. Wear a cup.
If the government were serious about stopping terrorist attacks, we'd adopt a sane non-aggressive policy in the Middle East. Instead of defending actions that curtail the very freedoms they swear they are trying to protect, why don't you demand the government take meaningful action to protect us from terrorism, by weaning the US off oil, creating economic stability in the Middle East through mutually beneficial commerce, and ceasing support of Isreal's aggressive military actions?
But seriously, could being in the US Army qualify? You have training which might be considered threatening? Maybe not, might depend on what you did in the Army. Demo expert? Hand to hand combat? Maybe your are considered an asset to the bad guys?
I was a 31V, cross-trained as a 31C. That is, I field-serviced two-way radios, and I did a little training as a RATT operator (radio teletype, for long-range communication). If the bad guys need a handset on a PRC-77 or their RC-524 replaced, I could do it. Not that I would.
I am on that list. I don't know why; I have never been arrested or convicted or tried or anything else. I served honorably in the US Army. I fly all the time.
About 18 months ago, I got on this watch list. It isn't so secret if you are a traveller. You can't use the fancy-shmancy self-service kiosks. You have to wait for a representative to help you. They have to make phone calls. The entire process takes an addiotional 10-15 minutes of not only my time, but the service representative, as well.
There was some poor Thai girl in Bangkok. It was her second day on the job, and she freaked out when my name came up as I was checking in. It took them about 20 minutes to make the call to the US and get stuff squared away.
No, I have not been arrested because of it. But, as an innocent person, why am I singled out for bureaucratic harrasement? I am denied the conveniences of other citizens simply because of my name existing on a watch list.
You mean to tell me that a company that builds a networking infrastructure actually gets to set the terms by which others are or are not allowed to use it?
Considering they built the networking infrastructure with a large amount of public funds, then no, they don't get to set the terms.
The companies themselves invested quite a bit, that's true. But they certainly accepted hundreds of millions of tax dollars to work on this new-fangled intar-net thing, and that puts them in poor negotiating position when it comes to public access to the 'net.
The problem started when the government got involved, and let the telcos string wires on public land, and gave the telcos money to build the infrastructure. That should *never* have happened. Just like the US freeways should've been built exclusively by private industry, and every citizen should have to pay a toll to the company owning that portion of the road for every mile driven. And the toll collectors should be able to charge you more if you are going to work than if you are going grocery shopping, for instance. It's their road, after all.
And we wonder why there is a debate between Darwinism and Creationism.
No, we don't.
There is a debate because creationists have manufactured a debate. There is internal debate among biologists about some of the mechanisms of evolution and natural selection, but that doesn't require creationism in the slightest.
Those who espouse creationism do so out of a bond to a cult. "If it contradicts what is literally in my Bible, it is false." That is an aspect of a cult: to deny the evidence when faced with it. (There's also the whole personality-driven thing, in which Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, and their demons play a major part.)
Now, it's your chance to respond, "That is just what Darwinists do!" As if stating it as fact makes it fact.
The funny thing is, Darwin didn't create the theory of evolution. It existed for years before Darwin boarded the Beagle. He came up with the concept that is the core of current evolutionary theory, though: that evolution is driven by natural selection. "Natural selection" is merely the idea that some phenotypes within a population are better adapted at survival than others, within the current environment. When there is little selection pressure, many phenotypes may survive, allowing genetic diversity within a population. When the environment changes, certain phenotypes may provide better adaption to the environment. When two different phenotypes provide survival traits, you may end up with a divergent population, resulting in two species where there used to be one.
Most modern biologists accept this as the driving force behind evolution. There are details that are argued, and there is always points of debate, but the fundamental theory is laid down more-or-less as Darwin painted it.
. . . but are in actuallity mere theory and speculation.
That pretty much removes you from any serious debate. The Theory of Gravity is just a theory, but I don't see you jumping off a very tall cliff with no parachute any time soon. You should go figure out what a "theory" is in the scientific sense before making stupid statements like this.
The way science works is this: if you have an theory that fits the facts, and accurately makes predictions (which is required for testability), that theory survives. Once that theory fails a prediction, the theory is either modified or discarded. Hopefully, there are competing theories to take its place that provide a more accurate prediction mechanism.
The theory of evolution through natural selection has survived a long, long time. It is probably one of the most-tested theories ever. One example: it predates modern genetic theory, and yet the implications of evolution on genetics (the predictions) are borne out by modern genetic research.
The problem with the creationists' appeal to a divine intervention is simple. For it to be a viable scientific theory, it must make predictions that can be tested for accuracy. There is no known method to accurately test for God. You might assume his existence, but you cannot test for him, the the best of my knowledge.
The arguments of the intelligent design crowd invariably reduce to a simple logical mistake: we don't know how it happened, so it must've been God who did it. And when science, using its proven epistemology, pushes back the boundaries of knowledge, the ID crowd responds, "Oh, yes, well, we didn't quite mean that. We meant this other thing that you can't prove." It happened with "irreducible complexity" (which is nothing but the long-disproven "Only God could create the eye" argument gussied up with the terminology of microbiology), it happened with the catastrophists (who use catastrophism to prove the Biblical flood), and will most likely occur with the next pseudo-scientific attempt to subvert education.
Ultimately, that's what this is about: the ability to control the next generation through education. If they are taught to think for themselves, to reason about problems instead of appealing to
Animals, on the other hand, have pretty bad eyesight since no animals can use tools or weapons to fight.
Yeah. The phrase "eagle-eyed" was coined in reference to jet-fighter pilots who flew the "Eagle."
This is silly. Fighter pilots have excellent eyesight because they are chosen to fly based partly on their excellent eyesight. The other assertions about improved eyesight with respect to rifle training is perhaps accurate to a certain extent, but it has more to do with exercising the eye. If pretty much anyone can increase their visual range by practice, it provides no real evolutionary selection mechanism, and so wouldn't drive evolution.
What the university student's report failed to mention, about the fear of snakes, is what archaeological & DNA evidence supported this theory. It's a stupid theory, imho, and was probably voiced not because of any particular insight on the part of the student, but instead to get reputation and/or credentials and was written to 'sound good'.
Amen to that, Brother. This is a minor hypothesis that hasn't even been tested yet. Strange that it would get news coverage, except that ID and evolution are very much in the news these days.
Because "wrong" has more avenues of consequence than "right", more can go wrong than right.
This is an assumption, not a fact. One might equally assume that "wrong" avenues tend to end, while "right" avenues survive, and allow for more exercising of power. Or, stated differently: the wrong consequences don't as often matter as the right consequences.
I don't necessarily believe it. But I also don't believe there are more avenues for wrong than for right.
Nice. Let's just let the President do whatever he wants, all in the name of fighting terror.
There have been allegations that Bush and others have used this program (illegal by definition, as he did not get court approval for a vast number of these taps) have used this program to spy on domestic groups in the US that publicly oppose the President and his policies.
It's called access control... it's there for a reason... and it's not to hinder an investigative probe into misconduct, but to prevent the hindering of investigations into terrorist activities.
Precisely!
So why is the President using it to block an investigative probe into misconduct? If he has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear.
That's the question we'd like answered. It appears the President used his position to order wiretaps without bothering to get judicial authorisation, which is illegal. Or, at least, was at the time. That's the point of the investigation, to learn exactly what was done, when, by whom, and for what purpose.
If the President illegally ordered wiretaps, it's a Very Big Deal.
I have a technical background that includes Windows Desktop and Server, Routers (WAN and Layer 3), hardware including cabling, ability to interface with vendors and deal with complex issues and get them resolved in short order.
You and everybody else.
The first half of this sentence includes facts. The second half includes valuations. Pretty much any admin has experience with MS-Windows (desktop and server), and most have dealt with their share of routers and L3 switches. I'd wager most of those have also had to run their share of cable. Most of us know which end of the bit to use in a punch-down tool.
The rest of it, the ability to "deal with complex issues. .." well, hell, everybody claims those sorts of abilities. I'd even throw in "ability to communicate effectively," too. Oh, and don't forget to put in, "works well in both group and independent situations as the need arises."
A good resume hasn't worked well since the collapse a few years ago. Nowadays, you need a great resume. One printed on 60# bond paper using four-color dye-sublimation printing process. With MS Comic Sans, 16-point bold italic underline.
Senior Managment has supported me (even over my direct Manager).
Ah. So there's the problem. Nobody is going to hire a troublemaker, someone who will go over their head. You want to appear to be a team player, especially in your resume. You want to appear to be eager but seasoned, a team player that will sacrifice home and family for work. I mean, literally sacrifice. Some of those folks are devil worshipers, you know, and a little blood sacrifice goes a long way.
Anyway, tighten up that resume, friend. It's worth the US$20 to go to a professional resume-writer. Steal a sample resume while you are in their office, and use that instead of your own.
Good luck, Tiger. Now go out and knock 'em dead! That works well, too. If they don't hire you, I mean.
Well, if you'd bothered to RTFA, you'd discover that a guy who makes movies also is an enthusiastic snowglobe collector. So, the Red Paperclip Guy (whom I shall call Milton, for obvious reasons) traded the snowglobe for a part in a move the guy was making.
Basically, a lot of people helped him on his quest.
Re:Al Queda, witches, devil worshippers, and gangs
on
Gangs on the Internet
·
· Score: 2
Some people seem to think that if you do it for evolution instead of religion, you are more sane and acceptable.
Fuckin' A right, Mister! All those wars in the name of evolution, all that slaughter in the name of natural selection, that was for progress! I'm killin' this cross-wearer for Darwin, gene-damnit!
After that, I'm going to have a little holy feast in the name of physics.
Then I'm going to start the astronomy crusades! ay-ay-ay-ay-ay-ay! (That's my war cry. Scary, isn't it? It's scientifically calculated to incite fear in the brain of the anti-knowledge heathen.)
My wife and I married after 11 years because we decided it was time to declare to our friends and family that we intended to live out our lives together, as a single family group. Meaning: I love her very much, and I don't see spending my life with anyone else. She loves me very much, and claims she doesn't want to spend her life with anyone else.
So, we got married in front of friends and family. Part of our ceremony involved the gathered friends and family, and asked for their pledge to provide emotional support to us.
Marriage is supposed to be about one thing: two people loving each other to the point where they decide to build a life together, to make decisions together, to create a future together. Children are completely optional. (And, incidently, same-sex couples can raise kids, too, so if that's what marriage is about, there's still no reason to exclude them.)
So, as the other reply said, it's about love. Sure, that's kinda shmaltzy, but what the hell.
(and marriage is essentially a religious construct between a man and a (or in a few cases multiple) woman.
What if you follow a religion that allows same-sex partnerships? Could the religious construct then be between, say, a man and a man and their God? In that case, what's the real difference between the currently-politicized situation and your suggested resolution?
Dude, marriage means one thing, and changing it to mean a new thing is not something I approve.
And what does marriage mean? Is it not the joyous union of two people who love each other, and are publicly declaring their willingness to bind to each other? Is it not the promise of friends and family to support the couple in their quest for happiness together?
There is no special definition of marriage to exclude people of the same sex from getting married. Your marriage (should you presently be in such a union) is in no way diminished by homosexuals marrying. Your life is in no way changed or altered by allowing others to enjoy the priveleges gained by marriage. The world is not going to change for the worse because same-sex couples publicly and enthusiastically declare their love for each other, and bind their lives together.
There *is* a definition of marriage. By that definition, there's no reason homosexuals shouldn't get married.
Marriage is a way of committing to the long term act of raising children properly.
My wife and I do not have children, nor do we ever intend to have children. Our marriage is not about raising children. Nor do I believe you really mean this is what it's about.
Otherwise:
Shouldn't gay people get married if they intend to raise children (either through adoption or, in the case of a good friend of mine, through artificial insemination)? If the entire point of getting married is to raise children, shouldn't there be a law banning people like my wife and I, two childless heterosexuals? If the entire point is raising children, shouldn't marriage wait until one of the involved is pregnant?
The statement that marriage is about raising children is hypocritical rationalisation. Otherwise, we'd all shut our pie-holes and let gay people marry, adopt, and raise kids with our complete blessing.
There was no competition for computers, unless you count analog computers. So geeks had a 1/1 chance of choosing the right choice.
I've noticed pretty much the same thing. Geeks choose the right technology. The general public chooses the best-marketted technology. In many cases, those are not equivelent.
I believe Linux (or some other Free OS) will become the de-facto standard. It'll be years, though. MS has a lot of money to burn, and a lot of money coming in. Yes, we've already seen the world change for them (WRT income, shares, market share, etc), but it'll *still* be a long time before MS is truly no longer the leader.
Years, I tell you.
So, we were right with computers. Duh. There was nothing else. We were right with the internet. I mean, it was the Internet, or whatever dial-up island you chose, whether AOL or... well, I don't remember their names. But there were a slew of them. Of *course* the Internet was going to win. The others were just islands. The Internet was everything. So it wasn't much of a choice.
Geeks don't have the best record for specific products. We just know where things are going in general.
Why be all socialist and get someone else who will never use it to pay for it?
See, this is the funny thing: I'm discovering I have a socialist bent. I don't know why. I guess I'm just getting disillusioned with the perverted form of capitalism practiced by the USA. (Hey, at least I know it's not real capitalism. I just think communism and capitalism have one thing in common: human nature will not allow them to work in practice.)
Anyway, so I have a socialist bent. And I think it's a stupid bridge. They've been charging US$4 for the ferry ride for about a billion years, hoping to raise enough money to build the bridge. Okay, that's cool. But the money never goes to a fucking bridge. It always goes somewhere else, like helping absorb the cost of the pulp mill shutting down because it won't pay for the upgrades required to come in to compliance with anti-pollution laws.
It's not smart, no matter what social or economic or political band to which you think you belong. And yet it was a serious thing, that got serious funding.
This all just goes to show that it doesn't matter whether you believe in capitalism or socialism, democracy or fascism, it's always fucked up.
It's been a while, but I hope you come back to this.
Very good responses. I'll just respond to one, for the sake of brevity (this could turn into a real, meaningful debate, which always takes time).
For #4: I mostly espouse the government staying the hell out of education, except for funding. This applies to #3 as well, but this reply more directly addresses education. One problem with our education system is mostly that there is a vast difference in funding for schools. Poor areas receive very little in per-student funding, and richer areas get substantially more funding per-student. All other factors aside (and there are a lot of other factors, I know), there is a direct correllation between funding and educational success. All I'm saying, we need to fund schools based on a per-student basis, with adjustments for physical handicaps (not a person's handicap, but a school's handicap, like being out in Bum-Fuck Egypt, Alaska).
Once that is accomplished, we can take a look at adjusting the system in other ways.
There's a lot of problems with government funding of social programs. I watched my wife go through hell managing a welfare-to-work program, and the biggest pain was the government regulations and standards, not the people trying to move into being productive members of society. The government interference was a problem, not a benefit. So I understand your argument, and agree with it to a large degree.
But, at the end of the day, there's still oversight of these programs. We know every good and bad aspect, and we will forever argue about what's good and bad. With the power-grab Bush has given himself, there is no such oversight. That was my original point.
I'd love to continue discussing how to solve these other social problems, though. You sound intelligent and well-informed, and also reasonable. Getting more folks like you together to discuss this stuff would be a boon to society.
Slashdot Mirror
The Libertarian party wants to take these things out of the hands of the government and put them back where they belong.. Into your hands.
Essentially, Libertarians would hand economics over to the big businesses, not into *my* hands. Big businesses are willing to accept long-term destruction for short-term gain. Unfettered big business *bad* for people, and for society, not good.
I'd rather have stupid laws that rampant corporatism. Unfortunately, we now have both.
Right on. It seems that all these people who complain would rather see your children dead then let the government do its job (protecting your freedom).
"Heh. Seems you got some freedom that needs protecktin' there, Joe. It sure ain't safe out here in the open air, no-siree. Howsabout I take that there freedom and place it in a nice, safe box for you, so's none of them terrorists can get at it? You know them terrorists are hidin' everywhere. EVERYwhere. THERE'S ONE NOW! Under that bush. He almost got your freedom.
"I better take that freedom from you. To make it safe, you know."
In the US, more people die from AIDs than from terrorist attacks by an order of magnitude, but I don't see the government spending *nearly* the same amount of money trying to stop AIDs as they do trying to stop terrorists. More people are killed by their spouses than by terrorists here in the states. Should we outlaw marriage?
Stop being a pussy. The world is a tough place. Wear a cup.
If the government were serious about stopping terrorist attacks, we'd adopt a sane non-aggressive policy in the Middle East. Instead of defending actions that curtail the very freedoms they swear they are trying to protect, why don't you demand the government take meaningful action to protect us from terrorism, by weaning the US off oil, creating economic stability in the Middle East through mutually beneficial commerce, and ceasing support of Isreal's aggressive military actions?
But seriously, could being in the US Army qualify? You have training which might be considered threatening? Maybe not, might depend on what you did in the Army. Demo expert? Hand to hand combat? Maybe your are considered an asset to the bad guys?
I was a 31V, cross-trained as a 31C. That is, I field-serviced two-way radios, and I did a little training as a RATT operator (radio teletype, for long-range communication). If the bad guys need a handset on a PRC-77 or their RC-524 replaced, I could do it. Not that I would.
That is utter and complete bullshit.
I am on that list. I don't know why; I have never been arrested or convicted or tried or anything else. I served honorably in the US Army. I fly all the time.
About 18 months ago, I got on this watch list. It isn't so secret if you are a traveller. You can't use the fancy-shmancy self-service kiosks. You have to wait for a representative to help you. They have to make phone calls. The entire process takes an addiotional 10-15 minutes of not only my time, but the service representative, as well.
There was some poor Thai girl in Bangkok. It was her second day on the job, and she freaked out when my name came up as I was checking in. It took them about 20 minutes to make the call to the US and get stuff squared away.
No, I have not been arrested because of it. But, as an innocent person, why am I singled out for bureaucratic harrasement? I am denied the conveniences of other citizens simply because of my name existing on a watch list.
So, I call bullshit.
You mean to tell me that a company that builds a networking infrastructure actually gets to set the terms by which others are or are not allowed to use it?
Considering they built the networking infrastructure with a large amount of public funds, then no, they don't get to set the terms.
The companies themselves invested quite a bit, that's true. But they certainly accepted hundreds of millions of tax dollars to work on this new-fangled intar-net thing, and that puts them in poor negotiating position when it comes to public access to the 'net.
The problem started when the government got involved, and let the telcos string wires on public land, and gave the telcos money to build the infrastructure. That should *never* have happened. Just like the US freeways should've been built exclusively by private industry, and every citizen should have to pay a toll to the company owning that portion of the road for every mile driven. And the toll collectors should be able to charge you more if you are going to work than if you are going grocery shopping, for instance. It's their road, after all.
And we wonder why there is a debate between Darwinism and Creationism.
No, we don't.
There is a debate because creationists have manufactured a debate. There is internal debate among biologists about some of the mechanisms of evolution and natural selection, but that doesn't require creationism in the slightest.
Those who espouse creationism do so out of a bond to a cult. "If it contradicts what is literally in my Bible, it is false." That is an aspect of a cult: to deny the evidence when faced with it. (There's also the whole personality-driven thing, in which Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, and their demons play a major part.)
Now, it's your chance to respond, "That is just what Darwinists do!" As if stating it as fact makes it fact.
The funny thing is, Darwin didn't create the theory of evolution. It existed for years before Darwin boarded the Beagle. He came up with the concept that is the core of current evolutionary theory, though: that evolution is driven by natural selection. "Natural selection" is merely the idea that some phenotypes within a population are better adapted at survival than others, within the current environment. When there is little selection pressure, many phenotypes may survive, allowing genetic diversity within a population. When the environment changes, certain phenotypes may provide better adaption to the environment. When two different phenotypes provide survival traits, you may end up with a divergent population, resulting in two species where there used to be one.
Most modern biologists accept this as the driving force behind evolution. There are details that are argued, and there is always points of debate, but the fundamental theory is laid down more-or-less as Darwin painted it.
. . . but are in actuallity mere theory and speculation.
That pretty much removes you from any serious debate. The Theory of Gravity is just a theory, but I don't see you jumping off a very tall cliff with no parachute any time soon. You should go figure out what a "theory" is in the scientific sense before making stupid statements like this.
The way science works is this: if you have an theory that fits the facts, and accurately makes predictions (which is required for testability), that theory survives. Once that theory fails a prediction, the theory is either modified or discarded. Hopefully, there are competing theories to take its place that provide a more accurate prediction mechanism.
The theory of evolution through natural selection has survived a long, long time. It is probably one of the most-tested theories ever. One example: it predates modern genetic theory, and yet the implications of evolution on genetics (the predictions) are borne out by modern genetic research.
The problem with the creationists' appeal to a divine intervention is simple. For it to be a viable scientific theory, it must make predictions that can be tested for accuracy. There is no known method to accurately test for God. You might assume his existence, but you cannot test for him, the the best of my knowledge.
The arguments of the intelligent design crowd invariably reduce to a simple logical mistake: we don't know how it happened, so it must've been God who did it. And when science, using its proven epistemology, pushes back the boundaries of knowledge, the ID crowd responds, "Oh, yes, well, we didn't quite mean that. We meant this other thing that you can't prove." It happened with "irreducible complexity" (which is nothing but the long-disproven "Only God could create the eye" argument gussied up with the terminology of microbiology), it happened with the catastrophists (who use catastrophism to prove the Biblical flood), and will most likely occur with the next pseudo-scientific attempt to subvert education.
Ultimately, that's what this is about: the ability to control the next generation through education. If they are taught to think for themselves, to reason about problems instead of appealing to
Animals, on the other hand, have pretty bad eyesight since no animals can use tools or weapons to fight.
Yeah. The phrase "eagle-eyed" was coined in reference to jet-fighter pilots who flew the "Eagle."
This is silly. Fighter pilots have excellent eyesight because they are chosen to fly based partly on their excellent eyesight. The other assertions about improved eyesight with respect to rifle training is perhaps accurate to a certain extent, but it has more to do with exercising the eye. If pretty much anyone can increase their visual range by practice, it provides no real evolutionary selection mechanism, and so wouldn't drive evolution.
What the university student's report failed to mention, about the fear of snakes, is what archaeological & DNA evidence supported this theory. It's a stupid theory, imho, and was probably voiced not because of any particular insight on the part of the student, but instead to get reputation and/or credentials and was written to 'sound good'.
Amen to that, Brother. This is a minor hypothesis that hasn't even been tested yet. Strange that it would get news coverage, except that ID and evolution are very much in the news these days.
Because "wrong" has more avenues of consequence than "right", more can go wrong than right.
This is an assumption, not a fact. One might equally assume that "wrong" avenues tend to end, while "right" avenues survive, and allow for more exercising of power. Or, stated differently: the wrong consequences don't as often matter as the right consequences.
I don't necessarily believe it. But I also don't believe there are more avenues for wrong than for right.
There are no creatures anywhere in nature which use wheels. Nor, as far as I know, plants.
One word, my friend:
Tumbleweeds.
Nice. Let's just let the President do whatever he wants, all in the name of fighting terror.
There have been allegations that Bush and others have used this program (illegal by definition, as he did not get court approval for a vast number of these taps) have used this program to spy on domestic groups in the US that publicly oppose the President and his policies.
It's called access control... it's there for a reason... and it's not to hinder an investigative probe into misconduct, but to prevent the hindering of investigations into terrorist activities.
Precisely!
So why is the President using it to block an investigative probe into misconduct? If he has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear.
Umm, just exactly _what_ illegal actions occured?
That's the question we'd like answered. It appears the President used his position to order wiretaps without bothering to get judicial authorisation, which is illegal. Or, at least, was at the time. That's the point of the investigation, to learn exactly what was done, when, by whom, and for what purpose.
If the President illegally ordered wiretaps, it's a Very Big Deal.
I have a technical background that includes Windows Desktop and Server, Routers (WAN and Layer 3), hardware including cabling, ability to interface with vendors and deal with complex issues and get them resolved in short order.
." well, hell, everybody claims those sorts of abilities. I'd even throw in "ability to communicate effectively," too. Oh, and don't forget to put in, "works well in both group and independent situations as the need arises."
You and everybody else.
The first half of this sentence includes facts. The second half includes valuations. Pretty much any admin has experience with MS-Windows (desktop and server), and most have dealt with their share of routers and L3 switches. I'd wager most of those have also had to run their share of cable. Most of us know which end of the bit to use in a punch-down tool.
The rest of it, the ability to "deal with complex issues. .
A good resume hasn't worked well since the collapse a few years ago. Nowadays, you need a great resume. One printed on 60# bond paper using four-color dye-sublimation printing process. With MS Comic Sans, 16-point bold italic underline.
Senior Managment has supported me (even over my direct Manager).
Ah. So there's the problem. Nobody is going to hire a troublemaker, someone who will go over their head. You want to appear to be a team player, especially in your resume. You want to appear to be eager but seasoned, a team player that will sacrifice home and family for work. I mean, literally sacrifice. Some of those folks are devil worshipers, you know, and a little blood sacrifice goes a long way.
Anyway, tighten up that resume, friend. It's worth the US$20 to go to a professional resume-writer. Steal a sample resume while you are in their office, and use that instead of your own.
Good luck, Tiger. Now go out and knock 'em dead! That works well, too. If they don't hire you, I mean.
Well, if you'd bothered to RTFA, you'd discover that a guy who makes movies also is an enthusiastic snowglobe collector. So, the Red Paperclip Guy (whom I shall call Milton, for obvious reasons) traded the snowglobe for a part in a move the guy was making.
Basically, a lot of people helped him on his quest.
Some people seem to think that if you do it for evolution instead of religion, you are more sane and acceptable.
Fuckin' A right, Mister! All those wars in the name of evolution, all that slaughter in the name of natural selection, that was for progress! I'm killin' this cross-wearer for Darwin, gene-damnit!
After that, I'm going to have a little holy feast in the name of physics.
Then I'm going to start the astronomy crusades! ay-ay-ay-ay-ay-ay! (That's my war cry. Scary, isn't it? It's scientifically calculated to incite fear in the brain of the anti-knowledge heathen.)
I know it's "wrong", but really...corporations are allowed to do what they want.
Uhm... no. There are laws and rules and regulations they have to follow, just like there are laws and regulations and rules *you* have to follow.
My wife and I married after 11 years because we decided it was time to declare to our friends and family that we intended to live out our lives together, as a single family group. Meaning: I love her very much, and I don't see spending my life with anyone else. She loves me very much, and claims she doesn't want to spend her life with anyone else.
So, we got married in front of friends and family. Part of our ceremony involved the gathered friends and family, and asked for their pledge to provide emotional support to us.
Marriage is supposed to be about one thing: two people loving each other to the point where they decide to build a life together, to make decisions together, to create a future together. Children are completely optional. (And, incidently, same-sex couples can raise kids, too, so if that's what marriage is about, there's still no reason to exclude them.)
So, as the other reply said, it's about love. Sure, that's kinda shmaltzy, but what the hell.
Are you sure it's all about the storage?
(It's a little dated, but that's still a damned good music player, in my opinion. I loved mine, 'til it got ripped off.)
(and marriage is essentially a religious construct between a man and a (or in a few cases multiple) woman.
What if you follow a religion that allows same-sex partnerships? Could the religious construct then be between, say, a man and a man and their God? In that case, what's the real difference between the currently-politicized situation and your suggested resolution?
Dude, marriage means one thing, and changing it to mean a new thing is not something I approve.
And what does marriage mean? Is it not the joyous union of two people who love each other, and are publicly declaring their willingness to bind to each other? Is it not the promise of friends and family to support the couple in their quest for happiness together?
There is no special definition of marriage to exclude people of the same sex from getting married. Your marriage (should you presently be in such a union) is in no way diminished by homosexuals marrying. Your life is in no way changed or altered by allowing others to enjoy the priveleges gained by marriage. The world is not going to change for the worse because same-sex couples publicly and enthusiastically declare their love for each other, and bind their lives together.
There *is* a definition of marriage. By that definition, there's no reason homosexuals shouldn't get married.
Marriage is a way of committing to the long term act of raising children properly.
My wife and I do not have children, nor do we ever intend to have children. Our marriage is not about raising children. Nor do I believe you really mean this is what it's about.
Otherwise:
Shouldn't gay people get married if they intend to raise children (either through adoption or, in the case of a good friend of mine, through artificial insemination)? If the entire point of getting married is to raise children, shouldn't there be a law banning people like my wife and I, two childless heterosexuals? If the entire point is raising children, shouldn't marriage wait until one of the involved is pregnant?
The statement that marriage is about raising children is hypocritical rationalisation. Otherwise, we'd all shut our pie-holes and let gay people marry, adopt, and raise kids with our complete blessing.
So what exactly is marriage? Can you define it without specifically stating it is between a man and a woman?
Uhm....
There was no competition for computers, unless you count analog computers. So geeks had a 1/1 chance of choosing the right choice.
I've noticed pretty much the same thing. Geeks choose the right technology. The general public chooses the best-marketted technology. In many cases, those are not equivelent.
I believe Linux (or some other Free OS) will become the de-facto standard. It'll be years, though. MS has a lot of money to burn, and a lot of money coming in. Yes, we've already seen the world change for them (WRT income, shares, market share, etc), but it'll *still* be a long time before MS is truly no longer the leader.
Years, I tell you.
So, we were right with computers. Duh. There was nothing else. We were right with the internet. I mean, it was the Internet, or whatever dial-up island you chose, whether AOL or... well, I don't remember their names. But there were a slew of them. Of *course* the Internet was going to win. The others were just islands. The Internet was everything. So it wasn't much of a choice.
Geeks don't have the best record for specific products. We just know where things are going in general.
Why be all socialist and get someone else who will never use it to pay for it?
See, this is the funny thing: I'm discovering I have a socialist bent. I don't know why. I guess I'm just getting disillusioned with the perverted form of capitalism practiced by the USA. (Hey, at least I know it's not real capitalism. I just think communism and capitalism have one thing in common: human nature will not allow them to work in practice.)
Anyway, so I have a socialist bent. And I think it's a stupid bridge. They've been charging US$4 for the ferry ride for about a billion years, hoping to raise enough money to build the bridge. Okay, that's cool. But the money never goes to a fucking bridge. It always goes somewhere else, like helping absorb the cost of the pulp mill shutting down because it won't pay for the upgrades required to come in to compliance with anti-pollution laws.
It's not smart, no matter what social or economic or political band to which you think you belong. And yet it was a serious thing, that got serious funding.
This all just goes to show that it doesn't matter whether you believe in capitalism or socialism, democracy or fascism, it's always fucked up.
It's been a while, but I hope you come back to this.
Very good responses. I'll just respond to one, for the sake of brevity (this could turn into a real, meaningful debate, which always takes time).
For #4: I mostly espouse the government staying the hell out of education, except for funding. This applies to #3 as well, but this reply more directly addresses education. One problem with our education system is mostly that there is a vast difference in funding for schools. Poor areas receive very little in per-student funding, and richer areas get substantially more funding per-student. All other factors aside (and there are a lot of other factors, I know), there is a direct correllation between funding and educational success. All I'm saying, we need to fund schools based on a per-student basis, with adjustments for physical handicaps (not a person's handicap, but a school's handicap, like being out in Bum-Fuck Egypt, Alaska).
Once that is accomplished, we can take a look at adjusting the system in other ways.
There's a lot of problems with government funding of social programs. I watched my wife go through hell managing a welfare-to-work program, and the biggest pain was the government regulations and standards, not the people trying to move into being productive members of society. The government interference was a problem, not a benefit. So I understand your argument, and agree with it to a large degree.
But, at the end of the day, there's still oversight of these programs. We know every good and bad aspect, and we will forever argue about what's good and bad. With the power-grab Bush has given himself, there is no such oversight. That was my original point.
I'd love to continue discussing how to solve these other social problems, though. You sound intelligent and well-informed, and also reasonable. Getting more folks like you together to discuss this stuff would be a boon to society.