Yes. McCain wanted to tax the poor to pay the wealthy. McCain was two footsteps from the grave with a ditzy anti-choice, creationist VP.
You said
Not once has he said he'd raise taxes on the Poor. Good Grief!
Please point out for me in the GP's post where he said McCain would raise taxes on the poor? That point is not in contention.
However, it is inarguable that Obama's tax plan would reduce taxes for most low-income workers, while McCain would keep those taxes the same. So under McCain's tax plan, the poor would be taxed more than they would be under Obama's tax plan. This is not in dispute by anyone, and is a perfectly sound basis for saying that "McCain wanted to tax the poor [more than Obama]." The whole thing about paying the wealthy is less defensible, but outside the scope of this response, since you didn't take issue with that part of GP's post.
Bad Comments are flamebait. Bad comments have nothing to do with the article they are attached to. They call someone names. They ridicule someone for having a different opinion without backing it up with anything more tangible than strong words. Bad comments are repeats of something said 15 times already making it quite apparent that the writer didn't read the previous comments. They use foul language. They are hard to read or just don't make any sense. They detract from the article they are attached to.
The parent did use "a name" but it was not an insult so much as voicing the consensus judgment of the behavior of the leader of OpenBSD, Theo de Raadt. de Raadt is, in fact, an "arrogant ass[]"; if a moderator thinks this is calling names rather than an accurate description, I encourage that moderator to peruse the history of Slashdot articles about de Raadt, perhaps starting with http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/17/127206
Thank you and let's all try to make Slashdot a better and more interesting place.
The right to a defense attorney in a CRIMINAL trial is implicit...
*FACEPALM*
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy... the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
U.S. Const., Amd VI
THIS is why our rights are eroding! Nobody even knows what they are! There is an EXPLICIT right to the assistance of counsel in criminal prosecutions. Say it with me:
Explicit right to counsel! Explicit right to counsel! Explicit right to counsel!
I'm going to go cry for the future of my country now. G'bye.:-(
Wrong. PC users always insult Mac users for having "been had," for being "chumps" and "gullible" and "sheeps" [sic] and whatever other asininity they can come up with.
I like having a real Unix machine with fonts that don't make my eyes bleed and the ability to play DVDs out of the box. I don't want to have to tinker, I don't want to have to reinstall my OS every 6 months, and I don't want to have to break the law just to watch a movie. And frankly, I shouldn't have to.
If you can read John Siracusa's review of OS X Tiger and not be impressed (particularly with respect to the versioned kernel interface system, something Linux would do well to mimic), then you're probably not a real Slashdotter. Getting excited about hardware specs is all fine and dandy when it pertains to what you can do with it, but people without a design outlook are engaging in "my GHz is bigger than your GHz" p*ssing contests.
The marginal utility of the Mac is the amount of thought that goes into the entire system. Everything from MagSafe and freefall harddrive locking to built-in webcams (which you'll notice PCs quickly copied) to POSIXy goodness and Open Group certification. Different volume settings for different audio pipelines. Self-contained applications, system-wide and per-user settings, etc.
Add to that its greatness as a development environment and I'm pretty much sold.
If only OS X (specifically HFS+) would support filesystem holes. Grrrr...
There is no such thing as a use which is "clearly fair use."
Fair Use is not a right, it's a guiding principle used in courts (it's what is called an "equitable doctrine" and acts as an "affirmative defense" -- "equity" refers to rules which are not law but are designed to overcome unfairness in some applications of the law, and an "affirmative defense" is where you admit to breaking the law but claim that it shouldn't matter because of some extenuating circumstance). Courts weigh several different highly "fuzzy" factors in determining whether Fair Use should apply.
Some people might think this distinction is pedantic, but it's important for the following reason: people in the open-source/media-rights community need to understand that current law is not as much in their column as they'd like. This means two things:
1) You should not assume, just because some use seems fair, that you would win in a copyright infringement case based on Fair Use.
2) If you want to make Fair Use into a well-defined right, you'll need to write to your representatives in Congress.
People who submit summaries on Slashdot which mischaracterize Fair Use do injury to the political goals of the readership.
First off, evolution doesn't depend on mutation, only certain kinds of macroevolution do.
Secondly, there are plenty of ways for young men's sperm to mutate, particularly in light of "modern social customs" like ingesting carcinogens day-in/day-out and carrying cell phones in front jeans pockets.
The anti-lawyer rhetoric on this board is pretty ridiculous. In case you forgot, the drafters of every open source license are lawyers. Lawrence Lessig is a lawyer. Charles Nesson is a lawyer. The people representing the defendants in RIAA suits are lawyers.
Obama is just another lawyer... who... ha[s] a... stance of... "hmmm, these RIAA guys, they DO pay kinda nice."
[citation needed] buddy. This truthiness crap is ridiculous. Unless you can prove the RIAA has employed Obama, that's libel. Watch yourself bub.
rather than defining and carrying out your own duty, you only wish to coerce others into performing
Son, my salary is within the top 2% of all incomes in the United States. Any increase in taxes proffered by Sen. Obama would land squarely at my doorstep, and I pay more than four figures per week in taxes as it is.
Don't you presume to tell me I'm not doing my part.
Then you're just, quite simply, un-American. It is the purpose of the Federal government to "promote the general welfare." It is our duty as citizens to protect each other from outside threats, and our duty as humans not to let the poor among us die in the streets.
The Republican party likes to talk about the Bible and responsibility. What happened to "love thy neighbor," and how is monetary greed anything but the shirking of responsibility?
There's only one man in the Bible to complain about the expectation that he was his brother's keeper. He seems like a pretty good metaphor for the Republican Party.
You know, I don't know about you, but I actually love my country. Running it is serious business to me. You may want to mock it and distort facts, but to me and to all truly patriotic people, this is not a chance to reenact kindergarten.
So you might want to take it a little more seriously, get informed, and stop spreading FUD.
Yes, there were lobbying reforms. Yes, they had to draw the line somewhere. Yes, Congress had to negotiate on that line. No, it's not perfect. But you know what? We're all better-off for it. And if you don't like it, if you wish Obama and similarly-minded people in BOTH parties could do more, then why on EARTH would you vote against those people, and vote for the people who obstruct that kind of legislation?
You fundamentally misunderstand what being on Law Review is.
AnonymousCoward@law.harvard.edu
Also... - Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act - Coburn-Obama Transparency Act - Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008 (cosponsored with none other than Sen. John McCain) - Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act - Honest Leadership and Open Government Act
What policies do you disagree with? - NOT firing our best Arab linguists when we're at war in the Middle East? - Providing mandatory healthcare to children? - Making healthcare affordable but optional for adults? - Reforming the tax code so it doesn't take a graduate degree to know how much your bill should be? - Investing in science and research so China doesn't kick our asses so handily in the next decade as they have in the past decade? - Increasing funding for charter schools so that even poor people can have school choice? - Moving race-based affirmative action toward a more socioeconomic-based affirmative action, so that his daughters are judged more fairly compared to a rural white boy with an underfunded school? - Ending an immoral war by setting concrete timelines, but recognizing that they may have to be modified depending on the conditions on the ground? - Reducing the incidence and unfairness of the death penalty, while understanding that certain heinous crimes deserve the full outrage of the nation? - Better sex education, so that there are fewer unexpected pregnancies, and so that when there are unexpected pregnancies, the women know there are options BESIDES abortion?
Exactly what policy do you object to?
I can't think of a single reason to support McCain's platform unless a) you make over $250,000/year; AND b) you're of the mind that you should keep all of it, no matter the cost to your community and country.
I never said it did. In fact, one of the near-flagship state universities in my state has a lower tuition and cost of attendance than the school I went to, which was a lower-ranked school. (They gave me a scholarship.)
On the other hand, universities are usually not-for-profit organizations, which means that higher tuition money doesn't go to shareholders or the proprietor, it goes to improvements in facilities, or to higher salaries to lure away star professors, or to the endowment of the university.
Also, as a school gains reputation, they can afford to increase tuition, because the market will bear it. If that continues long enough, then the school can afford to charge better-off students full tuition while subsidizing the cost of attendance for low-income students. This pays off by attracting public-service types of all income levels to the school, which in return (as those students graduate) increases the school's standing in the eyes of secondary educators, college educators, and government, which of course results in ever higher-caliber students being directed toward that school.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh. Right. Since the Dutch have so much experience with positive African relations. I think Nelson Mandela might have a problem with the Dutch deigning to give any advice in this area whatsoever.
GP said
Yes. McCain wanted to tax the poor to pay the wealthy. McCain was two footsteps from the grave with a ditzy anti-choice, creationist VP.
You said
Not once has he said he'd raise taxes on the Poor. Good Grief!
Please point out for me in the GP's post where he said McCain would raise taxes on the poor? That point is not in contention.
However, it is inarguable that Obama's tax plan would reduce taxes for most low-income workers, while McCain would keep those taxes the same. So under McCain's tax plan, the poor would be taxed more than they would be under Obama's tax plan. This is not in dispute by anyone, and is a perfectly sound basis for saying that "McCain wanted to tax the poor [more than Obama]." The whole thing about paying the wealthy is less defensible, but outside the scope of this response, since you didn't take issue with that part of GP's post.
You know who ELSE never used Microsoft products? That's right...
This is not flamebait. I encourage moderators to read the guidelines at http://slashdot.org/moderation.shtml
The parent did use "a name" but it was not an insult so much as voicing the consensus judgment of the behavior of the leader of OpenBSD, Theo de Raadt. de Raadt is, in fact, an "arrogant ass[]"; if a moderator thinks this is calling names rather than an accurate description, I encourage that moderator to peruse the history of Slashdot articles about de Raadt, perhaps starting with http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/17/127206
Thank you and let's all try to make Slashdot a better and more interesting place.
Copyright infringement is not theft, by any reasonable and pertinent definition of the word.
His name is Charles Nesson, not Charles Neeson.
I would know. He's my professor.
I think it's time for Slashdot to implement a new moderation:
+1, Brilliant
Wow. Could you possibly be any more reactionary or any less articulate?
The right to a defense attorney in a CRIMINAL trial is implicit...
*FACEPALM*
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy ... the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
U.S. Const., Amd VI
THIS is why our rights are eroding! Nobody even knows what they are! There is an EXPLICIT right to the assistance of counsel in criminal prosecutions. Say it with me:
Explicit right to counsel! Explicit right to counsel! Explicit right to counsel!
I'm going to go cry for the future of my country now. G'bye. :-(
Wrong. PC users always insult Mac users for having "been had," for being "chumps" and "gullible" and "sheeps" [sic] and whatever other asininity they can come up with.
I like having a real Unix machine with fonts that don't make my eyes bleed and the ability to play DVDs out of the box. I don't want to have to tinker, I don't want to have to reinstall my OS every 6 months, and I don't want to have to break the law just to watch a movie. And frankly, I shouldn't have to.
Honestly, the problem is that gadget freaks and tinkerers have infiltrated the field of software engineering, leading to the proliferation of bad engineering and tweakable settings ad nauseum.
If you can read John Siracusa's review of OS X Tiger and not be impressed (particularly with respect to the versioned kernel interface system, something Linux would do well to mimic), then you're probably not a real Slashdotter. Getting excited about hardware specs is all fine and dandy when it pertains to what you can do with it, but people without a design outlook are engaging in "my GHz is bigger than your GHz" p*ssing contests.
The fact that they can't give concrete examples is why you should listen to them.
A system that you don't notice, one that gets out of your way and lets you do things, is the best system.
Being obsessed with FEATURES (omg!) is what drives Microsoft's software development. So, yeah, thanks for a couple decades of bugs and bloat.
I agree.
The marginal utility of the Mac is the amount of thought that goes into the entire system. Everything from MagSafe and freefall harddrive locking to built-in webcams (which you'll notice PCs quickly copied) to POSIXy goodness and Open Group certification. Different volume settings for different audio pipelines. Self-contained applications, system-wide and per-user settings, etc.
Add to that its greatness as a development environment and I'm pretty much sold.
If only OS X (specifically HFS+) would support filesystem holes. Grrrr...
There is no such thing as a use which is "clearly fair use."
Fair Use is not a right, it's a guiding principle used in courts (it's what is called an "equitable doctrine" and acts as an "affirmative defense" -- "equity" refers to rules which are not law but are designed to overcome unfairness in some applications of the law, and an "affirmative defense" is where you admit to breaking the law but claim that it shouldn't matter because of some extenuating circumstance). Courts weigh several different highly "fuzzy" factors in determining whether Fair Use should apply.
Some people might think this distinction is pedantic, but it's important for the following reason: people in the open-source/media-rights community need to understand that current law is not as much in their column as they'd like. This means two things:
1) You should not assume, just because some use seems fair, that you would win in a copyright infringement case based on Fair Use.
2) If you want to make Fair Use into a well-defined right, you'll need to write to your representatives in Congress.
People who submit summaries on Slashdot which mischaracterize Fair Use do injury to the political goals of the readership.
What complete nonsense.
First off, evolution doesn't depend on mutation, only certain kinds of macroevolution do.
Secondly, there are plenty of ways for young men's sperm to mutate, particularly in light of "modern social customs" like ingesting carcinogens day-in/day-out and carrying cell phones in front jeans pockets.
As darkmeridian said above, this is just denying a MTD. MTDs are filed in every case, ever, and they are denied in the vast majority of them.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Only the greatest hacker of our time, duh.
http://xkcd.com/342/
What a troll.
The anti-lawyer rhetoric on this board is pretty ridiculous. In case you forgot, the drafters of every open source license are lawyers. Lawrence Lessig is a lawyer. Charles Nesson is a lawyer. The people representing the defendants in RIAA suits are lawyers.
Obama is just another lawyer ... who ... ha[s] a ... stance of ... "hmmm, these RIAA guys, they DO pay kinda nice."
[citation needed] buddy. This truthiness crap is ridiculous. Unless you can prove the RIAA has employed Obama, that's libel. Watch yourself bub.
Erm. Connecticut is not a Commonwealth. Massachusetts is.
rather than defining and carrying out your own duty, you only wish to coerce others into performing
Son, my salary is within the top 2% of all incomes in the United States. Any increase in taxes proffered by Sen. Obama would land squarely at my doorstep, and I pay more than four figures per week in taxes as it is.
Don't you presume to tell me I'm not doing my part.
Then you're just, quite simply, un-American. It is the purpose of the Federal government to "promote the general welfare." It is our duty as citizens to protect each other from outside threats, and our duty as humans not to let the poor among us die in the streets.
The Republican party likes to talk about the Bible and responsibility. What happened to "love thy neighbor," and how is monetary greed anything but the shirking of responsibility?
There's only one man in the Bible to complain about the expectation that he was his brother's keeper. He seems like a pretty good metaphor for the Republican Party.
There's no such legislation.
You know, I don't know about you, but I actually love my country. Running it is serious business to me. You may want to mock it and distort facts, but to me and to all truly patriotic people, this is not a chance to reenact kindergarten.
So you might want to take it a little more seriously, get informed, and stop spreading FUD.
Yes, there were lobbying reforms. Yes, they had to draw the line somewhere. Yes, Congress had to negotiate on that line. No, it's not perfect. But you know what? We're all better-off for it. And if you don't like it, if you wish Obama and similarly-minded people in BOTH parties could do more, then why on EARTH would you vote against those people, and vote for the people who obstruct that kind of legislation?
See below
You fundamentally misunderstand what being on Law Review is.
AnonymousCoward@law.harvard.edu
Also...
- Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act
- Coburn-Obama Transparency Act
- Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008 (cosponsored with none other than Sen. John McCain)
- Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act
- Honest Leadership and Open Government Act
And more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama#Legislation
What policies do you disagree with?
- NOT firing our best Arab linguists when we're at war in the Middle East?
- Providing mandatory healthcare to children?
- Making healthcare affordable but optional for adults?
- Reforming the tax code so it doesn't take a graduate degree to know how much your bill should be?
- Investing in science and research so China doesn't kick our asses so handily in the next decade as they have in the past decade?
- Increasing funding for charter schools so that even poor people can have school choice?
- Moving race-based affirmative action toward a more socioeconomic-based affirmative action, so that his daughters are judged more fairly compared to a rural white boy with an underfunded school?
- Ending an immoral war by setting concrete timelines, but recognizing that they may have to be modified depending on the conditions on the ground?
- Reducing the incidence and unfairness of the death penalty, while understanding that certain heinous crimes deserve the full outrage of the nation?
- Better sex education, so that there are fewer unexpected pregnancies, and so that when there are unexpected pregnancies, the women know there are options BESIDES abortion?
Exactly what policy do you object to?
I can't think of a single reason to support McCain's platform unless a) you make over $250,000/year; AND b) you're of the mind that you should keep all of it, no matter the cost to your community and country.
Right, because the President of the Harvard Law Review needs his academic records verified.
I never said it did. In fact, one of the near-flagship state universities in my state has a lower tuition and cost of attendance than the school I went to, which was a lower-ranked school. (They gave me a scholarship.)
On the other hand, universities are usually not-for-profit organizations, which means that higher tuition money doesn't go to shareholders or the proprietor, it goes to improvements in facilities, or to higher salaries to lure away star professors, or to the endowment of the university.
Also, as a school gains reputation, they can afford to increase tuition, because the market will bear it. If that continues long enough, then the school can afford to charge better-off students full tuition while subsidizing the cost of attendance for low-income students. This pays off by attracting public-service types of all income levels to the school, which in return (as those students graduate) increases the school's standing in the eyes of secondary educators, college educators, and government, which of course results in ever higher-caliber students being directed toward that school.
That would be my hypothesis anyway.