Care to cite references that say we're "kicking ass" in Afghanistan? Google "Taliban 2007" for all the reference you need.
You'd think the administration and the Pentagon would be quick to hype up the ass-kicking to deflect against Iraq. The Admin does. The Pentagon does not. The press ignores both.
Next, you say: If you believe the mass media have any sort of "left" agenda, or have any agenda whatsoever beyond getting the next advertising deal, you need to buy more tinfoil.
and
And yes, I do see combatant body counts. All the time, in fact, and you would too if you read media outside of the US or read some non-mainstream news sources, or at least not the "big" outlets.
Which kinda proves my point. The US media does not present any US military victories, just "how many US soldiers died today." Why should I have to go outside US media outlets to find out how many "insurgents" we are killing vs. how many soldiers we are losing. It's kinda hard to keep score when all you see is how many scores opponent has. Don't get me wrong, this is not a game, but if we attack an Al Qaeda stronghold and kill 10,000 insurgents and lose 5 US soldiers, all I see reported is how Al Qaeda killed five soldiers today. Are you telling me that's not pushing an agenda?
Employment is still low The unemployment rate is below 5%. It doesn't get much better without forced labor!
, stock is still down, The stock market is at near record highs. It has never passed 13000. Right now the Dow is at 12,983.19. The stock market has never been better!
petroleum products are still horribly expensive. And whose fault is that? The way I see it is that Bush wants to expand domestic production of oil to 1) bring prices down and 2) keep the money here instead of sending it to people who want to kill us. Tell me, who's stopping us from drilling in ANWR? It's not the Alaskans! Also, gas is cheaper today than it was in 1979 (adjusted for inflation, of course) and there is no rationing and no gas lines.
Oh yeah, and we're still entrenched in a losing battle with terrorism. I beg to differ on the "losing" portion of your propaganda. However, we have those on the left (including the media) who WANT us to lose this thing so it looks bad for Bush. How many Al Qaeda members did we kill yesterday? How about on any day at all since 9-11? Don't know do ya. Why? It's not reported. Every single US military death is (rightfully) reported with all its gory details, but you NEVER see an enemy head-count. Well, OK, you do sometimes, but they are labeled as "Iraqi civilians killed by US forces". Fact is, we are kicking major ass in Iraq and Afghanistan, but you won't see it reported because it doesn't meet the agenda.
I remember Carter VERY well. Why would you consider him worse than Bush?
Where do I begin:
Carter was more in the "Religious Right's" pocket than Bush ever will be. Were visiting dignitaries allowed a glass of wine with dinner while visiting the White House in 1978? Nope! Alcohol was banned in the White House by Carter.
Average mortgage rates during the Carter administration were over 15%! I don't even pay credit cards 15%!!!
Inflation was through the roof (12%).
Unemployment was high (7%).
Deficit spending went through the roof (the deficit for the fiscal year 1979 totaled $27.7 billion, and that for 1980 was nearly $59 billion).
Devaluation of the dollar.
Gas shortages.
Iranian hostage crisis.
Failure to rescue Iranian hostages.
Demoralization and dismantling of the US military
Canceled the B1-B program as well as the MBT-70. (Both badly needed to compete with our enemy of the time... the Soviets who had the T-72 and the Tu-160 BLACKJACK)
Need I go on?
Carter wasn't all bad, however. He did mediate a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt that is still in effect today.
It's actually kind of sad. Carter was probably the most intelligent president in US history. He just sucked as president. I can't say it was all his fault, but things were better when he took office than when he left and things were much, MUCH better after four years of Reagan.
Bush makes Nixon look like a shiny, white pussy cat without a speck of dirt on him.
Bush. Worst. President. Ever.
Is that all it takes to get mod-points here at slashdot, saying Bush=Bad? No reasons, no explanation, nothing but "Bush. Worst. President. Ever."
I guess this AC is too young to remember Carter, does not have a job (therefor unable to participate in the Best. Economy. Ever) and didn't pay attention in the history classes my tax dollars provide him.
clear your cookies twice a week and browse the web through Tor.. and use your neighbours wifi connection whenever possible.
Firefox has a setting that will clear all settings every time it's closed. Works like a champ. Of course, this won't clear any IP logs on Google's (or whoever's) site, but it's a start. I guess you can force your ISP to keep assigning a new IP to you, but that may be more of a hassle than it's worth. My tin-foil hat doesn't fit that tight.
When it locks up all keyboard input, requiring either a reboot, or logging in remotely through ssh (you're running sshd and remember your ip, don't you?).
Actually, yeah, that has happened to me. I don't know if I've seen it recently however, but I'm not using the system as much as I've used to. And yes, I do remember my IP (dynamic dns makes it easy) and I'm running sshd with denyhosts to fend of the hackers.
Beryl and Compiz are both still flaky and has numerous show stoppers even on the hardware where it works best. That is also why it is not enabled by default in any big Linux distributions.
How can something that can easily be turned off be a "show stopper". My current distro, Sabayon Linux, runs just as well with or without beryl enabled.
I will admit that beryl is not perfect, but some of that can be attributed to the distro itself. I would also like to point out that beryl is not feature complete yet, which is another reason it's not "stable".
Why would AMD change course when they haven't even released the fruits from that course yet. The problem is not the course they're on, but how fast they are getting there.
So before you claim that their current products (the course they are on) are failures, shouldn't you wait for them to be released?
Google "environmentalist agenda" or "environmentalist quotes".
Or, regardless of what you may think of the source, the data is accurate. The last quote is the most OT here.
A few examples:
Free Enterprise really means rich people get richer. They have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process.... Capitalism is destroying the earth.
--Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists
We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects.... We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land.
--David Foreman, Earth First!
Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed.
--Pentti Linkola
If you ask me, it'd be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won't give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other.
--Amory Lovins in The Mother Earth-Plowboy Interview, Nov/Dec 1977, p.22
Has ANYTHING Nuclear related not taken flak from green groups? I'm not surprised at all that they're objecting, I mean this is a perfectly clean form of electricity which wouldn't pollute anything and, in the event that it sank, would only deposit nuclear materials back where they came from, the Earth's Crust. Oh sorry, my anti-green group side is showing...
I think you can broaden your question to be "Has ANYTHING Energy related not taken flak from green groups?"
OK, I'll admit that if you'll admit that that the (ab)use of the same CCTV images lead the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, a man whose only crime appears to be running for a train that had just entered the station.
Fair enough. However, I'd blame that on overzealous cops before I'd blame the cameras.
Finally, how is this any different than all the cameras on every street corner in cities like London?
It's not any different and it's just as disturbing that no one seems to give a fuck. Those that do happen to give a fuck are labeled terrorists, anti-American, sympathizers, and troublemakers.
Why would those opposed to London cameras be labeled as "anti-American"? Again, you prove my point. Does everything have to lead back to America being bad?
And, you have to admit that those London street cameras helped quite a bit in tracking down the London train and bus bombers. Like 'em or not, they are effective as long as they are not abused. As for Venezuela, you can bet they will be abused.
Venezuela *is* in America, so it has gotten everything to do with it. I guess you are mumbling about the USA, which is only a small part of North America, never mind South America...
Maybe you should take that up with summary writer, bprime, who posed the question:
They're not exactly black helicopters, but how long do you think until we see similar measures in high-crime American cities?"
I get your point, but I was simply using America in the same reference as the summary.
They're not exactly black helicopters, but how long do you think until we see similar measures in high-crime American cities?"
First of all, why try to make this into some kind of "America bad" diatribe? Does everything have to end up connecting with the supposed lost liberties in America? This has nothing to with the US.
Next, it already has happened in America at least once that I'm aware of. There was a Fuji blimp in the air 24/7 over NY during the Republican National Convention in 2004. Rumor had it that it was there for security, both against terrorism and all the protesters that were trying to "brownshirt" the convention.
Finally, how is this any different than all the cameras on every street corner in cities like London?
Some say "kickbacks and corruption", some say "rewarding loyalty and encouraging capitalist innovation". Tomayto, tomahto. It depends if you're honest, or a Republican.
I still want to know, however, what exactly Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Vermont actually were from July 4, 1776 until November 15, 1777, if they were not independent states. Maybe you know.
Colonies in rebellion. They were not independent states. Yes, they were more independent than under the Constitution, but none stood alone.
(it's just the modern "papers, please" demand that we used to consider a sign of a deeply troubled society)
Why couldn't whoever is saying "papers, please" be talking about a state ID? What is it about state ID's that somehow magically prevents someone from asking for your "papers" that does not apply with Federal ID's?
Have you ever met a Federal officer? Do think a federal ID will make them all pop out of the sewers demanding to see it?
I call bullshit on this one! I carry a state ID every single day and no one has ever demanded to see my "papers" except when I get pulled over by LOCAL police. I have never, EVER been asked to show ID by a federal law enforcement agent. A federal ID program won't suddenly make a bunch of G-Men start crawling out of the sewer demanding to see your papers.
That "papers please" bullshit is by definition FUD!
The whole point of requiring an ID is to institute laws that will prevent you from doing certain things without the ID. That' and to make sure that when you do those things, the government can know about it.
Uh, they can do this now with state ID's. They don't need a federal ID system to do this, so why bother? What does a federal ID change?
And if they want to know about it, you may ask yourself what they are going to do with this knowledge.
What are they going to do with all that data I sent them a couple of days ago when I paid my taxes? Don't know and there is no a whole hell of a lot I can do about it. Still, if your worried about it, I think you are barking up the wrong tree! The got the data from the IRS, they don't need an ID to mine data! You should be bitching about the IRS, not a Fed ID program if data is what you are worried about.
Now, which of those allow it to pass the real ID act?
The very last one... this one:
Article I, Section 8, "Clause" 18: The Congress shall have power...To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
An unconstitutional Law passed by Congress does not trump a State Law, and Congress is certainly capable of passing unconstitutional Laws. (Choose your own favorite example.)
There is no such thing as an unconstitutional Law. A law is a law until the court rules it unconstitutional, at which point, it fails to be a law. It has nothing to do with states rights.
Slashdot Mirror
Care to cite references that say we're "kicking ass" in Afghanistan?
Google "Taliban 2007" for all the reference you need.
You'd think the administration and the Pentagon would be quick to hype up the ass-kicking to deflect against Iraq.
The Admin does. The Pentagon does not. The press ignores both.
Next, you say:
If you believe the mass media have any sort of "left" agenda, or have any agenda whatsoever beyond getting the next advertising deal, you need to buy more tinfoil.
and
And yes, I do see combatant body counts. All the time, in fact, and you would too if you read media outside of the US or read some non-mainstream news sources, or at least not the "big" outlets.
Which kinda proves my point. The US media does not present any US military victories, just "how many US soldiers died today." Why should I have to go outside US media outlets to find out how many "insurgents" we are killing vs. how many soldiers we are losing. It's kinda hard to keep score when all you see is how many scores opponent has. Don't get me wrong, this is not a game, but if we attack an Al Qaeda stronghold and kill 10,000 insurgents and lose 5 US soldiers, all I see reported is how Al Qaeda killed five soldiers today. Are you telling me that's not pushing an agenda?
"Failure to rescue Iranian hostages."
Excuse me? Don't you remember that they came out alive?
Yes, about 5 minutes after Reagan took office.
I bet I know what it is, we didn't bomb, strafe and kill to get the hostages back, and that makes you mad.
No, it made me feel humiliated, as did the rest of the country.
YOU weren't a hostage, and not killing to get them back makes you mad
True, but how many more have been kidnapped because Iran showed that IT WORKED! and we wouldn't do a damn thing about it.
Except that this is not the Best. Economy. Ever.
.
Employment is still low
The unemployment rate is below 5%. It doesn't get much better without forced labor!
, stock is still down,
The stock market is at near record highs. It has never passed 13000. Right now the Dow is at 12,983.19. The stock market has never been better!
petroleum products are still horribly expensive.
And whose fault is that? The way I see it is that Bush wants to expand domestic production of oil to 1) bring prices down and 2) keep the money here instead of sending it to people who want to kill us.
Tell me, who's stopping us from drilling in ANWR? It's not the Alaskans!
Also, gas is cheaper today than it was in 1979 (adjusted for inflation, of course) and there is no rationing and no gas lines.
Oh yeah, and we're still entrenched in a losing battle with terrorism.
I beg to differ on the "losing" portion of your propaganda. However, we have those on the left (including the media) who WANT us to lose this thing so it looks bad for Bush. How many Al Qaeda members did we kill yesterday? How about on any day at all since 9-11? Don't know do ya. Why? It's not reported. Every single US military death is (rightfully) reported with all its gory details, but you NEVER see an enemy head-count. Well, OK, you do sometimes, but they are labeled as "Iraqi civilians killed by US forces". Fact is, we are kicking major ass in Iraq and Afghanistan, but you won't see it reported because it doesn't meet the agenda.
What a great time to be alive and ignorant . .
It must be!
I remember Carter VERY well. Why would you consider him worse than Bush?
Where do I begin:
Carter was more in the "Religious Right's" pocket than Bush ever will be. Were visiting dignitaries allowed a glass of wine with dinner while visiting the White House in 1978? Nope! Alcohol was banned in the White House by Carter.
Average mortgage rates during the Carter administration were over 15%! I don't even pay credit cards 15%!!!
Inflation was through the roof (12%).
Unemployment was high (7%).
Deficit spending went through the roof (the deficit for the fiscal year 1979 totaled $27.7 billion, and that for 1980 was nearly $59 billion).
Devaluation of the dollar.
Gas shortages.
Iranian hostage crisis.
Failure to rescue Iranian hostages.
Demoralization and dismantling of the US military
Canceled the B1-B program as well as the MBT-70. (Both badly needed to compete with our enemy of the time... the Soviets who had the T-72 and the Tu-160 BLACKJACK)
Need I go on?
Carter wasn't all bad, however. He did mediate a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt that is still in effect today.
It's actually kind of sad. Carter was probably the most intelligent president in US history. He just sucked as president. I can't say it was all his fault, but things were better when he took office than when he left and things were much, MUCH better after four years of Reagan.
We really haven't done anything to show Bush that he is anything less than an absolute monarch in his kingdom.
So Bush decreed that private investment of personal Social Security funds thing and that drilling in ANWR thingie as supreme law?
Some monarch!
Are you kidding?
Bush makes Nixon look like a shiny, white pussy cat without a speck of dirt on him.
Bush. Worst. President. Ever.
Is that all it takes to get mod-points here at slashdot, saying Bush=Bad? No reasons, no explanation, nothing but "Bush. Worst. President. Ever."
I guess this AC is too young to remember Carter, does not have a job (therefor unable to participate in the Best. Economy. Ever) and didn't pay attention in the history classes my tax dollars provide him.
clear your cookies twice a week and browse the web through Tor.. and use your neighbours wifi connection whenever possible.
Firefox has a setting that will clear all settings every time it's closed. Works like a champ. Of course, this won't clear any IP logs on Google's (or whoever's) site, but it's a start. I guess you can force your ISP to keep assigning a new IP to you, but that may be more of a hassle than it's worth. My tin-foil hat doesn't fit that tight.
When it locks up all keyboard input, requiring either a reboot, or logging in remotely through ssh (you're running sshd and remember your ip, don't you?).
Actually, yeah, that has happened to me. I don't know if I've seen it recently however, but I'm not using the system as much as I've used to. And yes, I do remember my IP (dynamic dns makes it easy) and I'm running sshd with denyhosts to fend of the hackers.
Beryl and Compiz are both still flaky and has numerous show stoppers even on the hardware where it works best. That is also why it is not enabled by default in any big Linux distributions.
How can something that can easily be turned off be a "show stopper". My current distro, Sabayon Linux, runs just as well with or without beryl enabled.
I will admit that beryl is not perfect, but some of that can be attributed to the distro itself. I would also like to point out that beryl is not feature complete yet, which is another reason it's not "stable".
The "stay the course" strategy?
Why would AMD change course when they haven't even released the fruits from that course yet. The problem is not the course they're on, but how fast they are getting there.
So before you claim that their current products (the course they are on) are failures, shouldn't you wait for them to be released?
Or, regardless of what you may think of the source, the data is accurate. The last quote is the most OT here.
A few examples:
My sig is also an environmentalist quote!
I think you can broaden your question to be "Has ANYTHING not taken flak from green groups?"
The Amish
Has ANYTHING Nuclear related not taken flak from green groups? I'm not surprised at all that they're objecting, I mean this is a perfectly clean form of electricity which wouldn't pollute anything and, in the event that it sank, would only deposit nuclear materials back where they came from, the Earth's Crust. Oh sorry, my anti-green group side is showing...
I think you can broaden your question to be "Has ANYTHING Energy related not taken flak from green groups?"
OK, I'll admit that if you'll admit that that the (ab)use of the same CCTV images lead the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, a man whose only crime appears to be running for a train that had just entered the station.
Fair enough. However, I'd blame that on overzealous cops before I'd blame the cameras.
Why would those opposed to London cameras be labeled as "anti-American"? Again, you prove my point. Does everything have to lead back to America being bad?
And, you have to admit that those London street cameras helped quite a bit in tracking down the London train and bus bombers. Like 'em or not, they are effective as long as they are not abused. As for Venezuela, you can bet they will be abused.
Maybe you should take that up with summary writer, bprime, who posed the question:
I get your point, but I was simply using America in the same reference as the summary.
They're not exactly black helicopters, but how long do you think until we see similar measures in high-crime American cities?"
First of all, why try to make this into some kind of "America bad" diatribe? Does everything have to end up connecting with the supposed lost liberties in America? This has nothing to with the US.
Next, it already has happened in America at least once that I'm aware of. There was a Fuji blimp in the air 24/7 over NY during the Republican National Convention in 2004. Rumor had it that it was there for security, both against terrorism and all the protesters that were trying to "brownshirt" the convention.
Finally, how is this any different than all the cameras on every street corner in cities like London?
Some say "kickbacks and corruption", some say "rewarding loyalty and encouraging capitalist innovation". Tomayto, tomahto. It depends if you're honest, or a Republican.
Are you saying that Democrats don't take "kickbacks"? Do bribes count?
ah, Prof. Schrödinger, welcome to Slashdot.
AWESOME! Best post all day!
I still want to know, however, what exactly Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Vermont actually were from July 4, 1776 until November 15, 1777, if they were not independent states. Maybe you know.
Colonies in rebellion. They were not independent states. Yes, they were more independent than under the Constitution, but none stood alone.
(it's just the modern "papers, please" demand that we used to consider a sign of a deeply troubled society)
Why couldn't whoever is saying "papers, please" be talking about a state ID? What is it about state ID's that somehow magically prevents someone from asking for your "papers" that does not apply with Federal ID's?
Have you ever met a Federal officer? Do think a federal ID will make them all pop out of the sewers demanding to see it?
Papers please!
Falcon
I call bullshit on this one! I carry a state ID every single day and no one has ever demanded to see my "papers" except when I get pulled over by LOCAL police. I have never, EVER been asked to show ID by a federal law enforcement agent. A federal ID program won't suddenly make a bunch of G-Men start crawling out of the sewer demanding to see your papers.
That "papers please" bullshit is by definition FUD!
The whole point of requiring an ID is to institute laws that will prevent you from doing certain things without the ID. That' and to make sure that when you do those things, the government can know about it.
Uh, they can do this now with state ID's. They don't need a federal ID system to do this, so why bother? What does a federal ID change?
And if they want to know about it, you may ask yourself what they are going to do with this knowledge.
What are they going to do with all that data I sent them a couple of days ago when I paid my taxes? Don't know and there is no a whole hell of a lot I can do about it. Still, if your worried about it, I think you are barking up the wrong tree! The got the data from the IRS, they don't need an ID to mine data! You should be bitching about the IRS, not a Fed ID program if data is what you are worried about.
The very last one... this one:
An unconstitutional Law passed by Congress does not trump a State Law, and Congress is certainly capable of passing unconstitutional Laws. (Choose your own favorite example.)
There is no such thing as an unconstitutional Law. A law is a law until the court rules it unconstitutional, at which point, it fails to be a law. It has nothing to do with states rights.