Instead of throwing money at healthcare, figure out why health care is expensive.
As for taxes, tax cuts seem, for lack of a better term, "silly", in a time of recession. Shouldn't we focus on getting the national debt down before we cut anyone's taxes? (Unless there are some harmful taxes going on right now. Are the poor really that taxed heavily right now?) Of course, I feel eliminating the national debt can be good for the economy.
I'd like to see if anything can be cut from the DoD budget. How much of it is really necessary? And, is Obama for the current wars going on? Does he plan on keeping the current occupations going strong for years to come? Because we've heard about change, but I am not sure if I remember anything about him being an anti-war candidate.
And as for NASA, I don't know what to feel. On the one hand, space exploration brings technological advances, in medicine and other sciences, does it not? However, it's not like it's an absolute necessity. Thankfully, there is the House of Representatives. Perhaps we should voice our concerns to them, and let them decide what to do based on our input. After all, it's not necessarily the President's job to make the laws now, is it? (Maybe Bush changed things. Who knows?)
This may be off-topic, but what about those who do well in other areas, which aren't their necessary majors? Should they switch, or go with what they "want" to do?
Why is censorship of illegal material bad? If the material is illegal, why shouldn't it be censored?
Can anyone make this argument? Because if the material is illegal in the first place, meaning you would normally get in trouble for accessing it, period, then a preemptive measure shouldn't harm you, logically.
Cast aside the argument that it will make the Internet sluggish, because that argument will be nullified if technology and such improve enormously. Also cast aside the argument that it will be expensive to do, because what if we make it incredibly efficient?
Also cast aside the false positives occurring, because what if they get it so refined that a false positive is a one in a million occurance. In such a way that the system works exactly as proposed, with no drawbacks (concerning false positives, network lag, etc.) whatsoever.
I'm not defending censorship. I want someone to make a good argument.
Like Instant Run-off Voting? That'd be nice, but still, we'd need people to think about the choices they make. Because if their first choice is a bad choice, it's still a bad choice nonetheless.
1. Have the game admins deal with theft such as that. 2. Permit stealing in the games, within the boundary of the game. No hacking of other people's accounts allowed.
People need to think logically, and vote their hearts. They need to stop voting for the popular candidates, and look at all the choices individually. And this means eliminating someone as a possible voting choice when they see them do something foolish.
How do they know it is the actual person who is applying? How do they know if the page is truthful to what is said?
And since when would a college need to go this far to distinguish who should and shouldn't get into the college? Whatever happened to the application materials? What about the personal statement/essay they wrote for the college?
Or... just make a law mandating anyone who commits a violent crime, with a deadly weapon, to have their thumbs surgically removed. That would make weapon wielding quite difficult.
Top six vote getters (political parties only) in 2004 were the Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Greens, and the Peace and Freedom Party.
So, I'm saying those parties (not the individuals) should be granted automatic ballot access nationwide without the need to go through the hassle of meeting ballot requirements everywhere. It's almost a given the Democrats and Republicans will get ballot access everywhere already (except in this situation, hopefully), but it gives four 3rd parties automatic ballot access without the tedious work they have to do now.
I guess we'd need a Constitutional amendment to do such a thing, but oh well. It's just an idea.
An amendment that goes like, "The top six political parties as of the last Presidential election shall be guaranteed ballot access on the following Presidential election. The top six political parties shall be construed to mean the top six parties who get the most votes at the national level, Independent candidates ignored."
You know what we need? A federal law mandating that the top six political parties automatically get on the ballot for the Presidential election. The top six would be determined by the top six vote getters, nationally, as of the previous presidential election. This would ensure that this sort of thing doesn't happen again, but would significantly help third party candidates.
So, the RIAA is suing a lawyer? Let's see. They've sued people in the past who didn't have a law degree (I assume). Are they seriously suing someone with a law degree, or do I misunderstand the article?
Slashdot Mirror
No one thinks anymore. For example...
Instead of throwing money at healthcare, figure out why health care is expensive.
As for taxes, tax cuts seem, for lack of a better term, "silly", in a time of recession. Shouldn't we focus on getting the national debt down before we cut anyone's taxes? (Unless there are some harmful taxes going on right now. Are the poor really that taxed heavily right now?) Of course, I feel eliminating the national debt can be good for the economy.
I'd like to see if anything can be cut from the DoD budget. How much of it is really necessary? And, is Obama for the current wars going on? Does he plan on keeping the current occupations going strong for years to come? Because we've heard about change, but I am not sure if I remember anything about him being an anti-war candidate.
And as for NASA, I don't know what to feel. On the one hand, space exploration brings technological advances, in medicine and other sciences, does it not? However, it's not like it's an absolute necessity. Thankfully, there is the House of Representatives. Perhaps we should voice our concerns to them, and let them decide what to do based on our input. After all, it's not necessarily the President's job to make the laws now, is it? (Maybe Bush changed things. Who knows?)
This may be off-topic, but what about those who do well in other areas, which aren't their necessary majors? Should they switch, or go with what they "want" to do?
Why would it be so bad in a day where technology should be so advanced?
What about disabling pictures/whatever in your Internet browser settings?
Child pornography featuring actual children. (Not computer generated.)
Why is censorship of illegal material bad? If the material is illegal, why shouldn't it be censored?
Can anyone make this argument? Because if the material is illegal in the first place, meaning you would normally get in trouble for accessing it, period, then a preemptive measure shouldn't harm you, logically.
Cast aside the argument that it will make the Internet sluggish, because that argument will be nullified if technology and such improve enormously. Also cast aside the argument that it will be expensive to do, because what if we make it incredibly efficient?
Also cast aside the false positives occurring, because what if they get it so refined that a false positive is a one in a million occurance. In such a way that the system works exactly as proposed, with no drawbacks (concerning false positives, network lag, etc.) whatsoever.
I'm not defending censorship. I want someone to make a good argument.
How would you administer such a study? Go up to random people with an airhorn and see their reaction? Then ask them if they're...
A) Liberal
B) Conservative
C) Going to beat you up, hence you should run real fast
Like Instant Run-off Voting? That'd be nice, but still, we'd need people to think about the choices they make. Because if their first choice is a bad choice, it's still a bad choice nonetheless.
What do you mean by multi-party system? I need to know before I comment.
The gamemaker makes the rules. They could...
1. Have the game admins deal with theft such as that.
2. Permit stealing in the games, within the boundary of the game. No hacking of other people's accounts allowed.
People need to think logically, and vote their hearts. They need to stop voting for the popular candidates, and look at all the choices individually. And this means eliminating someone as a possible voting choice when they see them do something foolish.
How about one of those Eee PCs. Put your operating system, or "personal data", on a card, stick it into the card slot. Remove when not in use.
In Brazil, if a candidate is running unopposed, does that person automatically win? Or can you vote against an unopposed candidate?
How un-American. Oh wait...
What concerns me though is this...
How do they know it is the actual person who is applying?
How do they know if the page is truthful to what is said?
And since when would a college need to go this far to distinguish who should and shouldn't get into the college? Whatever happened to the application materials? What about the personal statement/essay they wrote for the college?
Or... just make a law mandating anyone who commits a violent crime, with a deadly weapon, to have their thumbs surgically removed. That would make weapon wielding quite difficult.
My mistake. Someone already said something similar.
Videos of guns kill people.
No, you misunderstand.
Top six vote getters (political parties only) in 2004 were the Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Greens, and the Peace and Freedom Party.
So, I'm saying those parties (not the individuals) should be granted automatic ballot access nationwide without the need to go through the hassle of meeting ballot requirements everywhere. It's almost a given the Democrats and Republicans will get ballot access everywhere already (except in this situation, hopefully), but it gives four 3rd parties automatic ballot access without the tedious work they have to do now.
I guess we'd need a Constitutional amendment to do such a thing, but oh well. It's just an idea.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004#Election_results
does that include linux users? Does that also include the fact Macs are technically PCs, personal computers and on the x86 architecture?
Yeah, but would it be a good idea?
An amendment that goes like, "The top six political parties as of the last Presidential election shall be guaranteed ballot access on the following Presidential election. The top six political parties shall be construed to mean the top six parties who get the most votes at the national level, Independent candidates ignored."
I am in favour of the electoral college. I think I'd rather secede than to abolish it. Then again, I am for states' rights.
You know what we need? A federal law mandating that the top six political parties automatically get on the ballot for the Presidential election. The top six would be determined by the top six vote getters, nationally, as of the previous presidential election. This would ensure that this sort of thing doesn't happen again, but would significantly help third party candidates.
but I hope they are allowed to run as write-in. Assuming the summary is true.
So, the RIAA is suing a lawyer? Let's see. They've sued people in the past who didn't have a law degree (I assume). Are they seriously suing someone with a law degree, or do I misunderstand the article?
Anyone care to guess how that will turn out?
The commercials seem to be about nothing. We don't learn about the product. I don't get how this was suppose to be helpful to Microsoft.
I think a better idea, for a gimmick, would be, "Try Windows Vista. If you don't like it after 30 days, we'll buy you a copy of Ubuntu."
(Yes, I'm trying for humour here.)