This is minor stuff compared to what really appeared in Apple instruction books in the 80s. They had a lame joke about how your floppy disk usually comes in black vinyl, not black leather. Like I really need S&M references when I'm trying to figure out why the farking machine isn't doing what it is supposed to.
Apple deserved to become 2nd place in computing.
Doesn't the trade union tap into employee knowledge of what the managers are doing, when they meet and don't, etc?
Trade unions are properly called what they used to be called in the U.S.: criminal conversations.
I disagree that electronic voting is a fiat accompli. I've been doing it for several elections now, hate it passionately, and I am determined to see a return to mark the box with the blotting pen ballot, regardless of the wasted expenditures in those dubious machines.
I was wondering where the researchers who came up with the "1-in-10 people are gay" results were going to find work, noting the singular lunacy of their results compared to other researchers. Do they now estimate war deaths? Just as the gay community jumped on the 10% bandwagon, no matter how inflated that was, no doubt this pravda about 100k excess deaths is going to be trumpted as a great truth by some.
In what way is a local police decision to control the location of a mob to be attributed to Bush? You say "Bush's willingness to use cayenne pepper balls on harmless civilians" as if it wasn't a call the local police made.
"About the only solution I can think of that even approaches being fair is that they have to buy Badnarik 30 minutes of prime-time 30-second spots."
The University of Arizona did nothing to confer television coverage on the debate - the candidates provided that, so there is no deprivation of use of a public facility aspect in the television coverage.
The two candidates also have some right to refrain from "compelled speach", in the form of lending their media drawing power to others against their will. The excluded debater has no more legitimate expectation of being entitled to force another candidate to involuntarily confer upon them media attention outside of a debate than within the setting of one.
The only reasonable damage award would deal with any possible reduction in rental of the facilities used for the debate on the premise that it improperly conferred a gift of public funds without legitimate basis. This is an extremely doubtful prospect. Universities host all kinds of speakers to enrich their students college experience.
Really, there is no worthwhile damage action in this. There surely isn't a plausible claim to pay for air time because someone else exercised a right to not confer upon another their own media drawing power, against their own will.
"continues on to destroy the damned CPD by asking for the equivalent of their 2008 budget for damages."
There isn't the vaguest plausible legal theory to support such a damage award, and a lawyer would probably be admonished by a court for asking for such a specious damage award.
"1. While cancelling the debate would not serve the "American" public, the court issuing the decision does not serve the "American" Public either. What counts is the rights and interests of the citizens of Arizona."
Extremely few Arizona citizens seemed compelled to protest to a court about this. It appears that partisans alone are motivated to.
"2. The debate will go on, and one candidate will win by a narrow margin. This is probably what would have happened if Bandarik had been admitted."
Well, yes, but which candidate gets the narrow margin? That's important to those two. If you don't like their choice to exclude other debaters, judge the candidates for that choice as you see fit.
"3. The Arizona LP can argue some incredible damages for the loss of the presidency. This may help them in 2008."
Eeerk. Loss of the presidency is a ridiculous hope of a damage claim, laughable really. The most they can conceivably hope to gain is to be awarded a windfall (as private attorney generals) of the complete damage measured by the value of the facility rented to the CPD versus the value if the CPD were any other entity (say a commercial lecture presentation by a stockbroker) which should belong to the people of Arizona but might be awarded successful plaintiffs for being the ones to bring suit, and attorney fees, etc. There's no big payoff in these damages. The money is trivial probably.
That is in now way simple, except maybe in a wonderfully flat place like Iowa, and even then there are going to be density issues that make 6 angles too restrictive. There are legitimate considerations in oddly shaped districts, particularly if you live in geographicaly complex places like California or other mountain states. You can readily have parts of the state that for election purposes are sensibly lumped together because shared mass media outlets, roadways and travel patterns, and other considerations make them a natural arena of dialogue for the electorate. Meanwhile equidistant places are so "as the crow flies" but are socially remote in terms of how frequent interaction between the communities is.
Geology is diverse, and so are the shapes of many electoral districts.
Discussion of the history of the CPD can be found here:
http://www.opendebates.org/documents/REPORT2.pdf
Unfortunately many people seem to have a misperception that the CPD is a government created public service corporation, like the US Olympic Committee, the Post Office, or such. It's a straightforward insider deal between Republicans and Democrats.
What was Badnarik to do if the CPD refuses to accept court papers at its headquarters? If that is false, then retain the bad opinion, but if what the linked story reports is true, that CPD simply refused to receive the OSC at its headquarters, was Badnarik to simply go cry in a corner?
Unfortunately the issue is: when Green or Libertarian candidates cannot serve court papers at the usual service of address, because of improper refusal there, what are they to do? The issue is not whether they are good political ideologies, but whether the US Court system is to have meaningful roles in checking arbitrary actions of people in power (here, the CPD).
Does anyone know if the minibrowser in WinAmp (an AOL product basically) and the minibrowser in Real Player are IE based, or just what browser scheme these minibrowsers are based on?
I understand Britain's Silly Party, if their election monitoring team manages to show up, might outdo even the Democrats for associating themselves with dispised people as an election tactic. None of this namby-pamby shilly-shally halfway effort by creating an army of lawers (slightly annoying) when real irritants such as used car salesmen (very annoying) and telemarketers (extremely annoying) can be marshalled to dispute the election results.
If you cut taxes in the middle of a war, this means you must finance that war by borrowing, which occurs in the form of issuing government securities. If you have lots of securities outstanding, because you are one of the most stable security issuers around, this means you have a lot of people around who have a strong interest in your not losing a war, which would result in reducing the value of your securities that they hold.
Recall that WWII was financed primarily by bonds, not taxes, as have almost all modern wars in the last 200 years. The French Revolution, sparked perhaps most of all by default on previous bonds which had been issued to fight previous wars, lead to the Napoleonic Wars, themselves heavily dependent on who was purchasing government bonds to finance campaigning. Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton? BAH! The Exchange (London) bested the Bourse (Paris), more to the point! The remainder of wars from there on are wars essentially financed by BORROWING (bonds), NOT TAXES. Tax hikes in war serve to reduce consumption and thus prevent social ills of inflation due to scarcities, and as well make the populace feel they have a stake in the matter, but they don't primarily finance wars. Neither of these effects are needed in the US at present.
Don't thank me for the explanation. So many wars have been financed by borrowing and foreign policies influenced by what debt paper one is holding, that this is all very very old hat and well known. You don't need to be a Rothschild to understand the game, or even have read the US Doctrine on "Economic Warfare" that it derived in WWI and WWII.
How about: it's a voice over added to the tape speaking in standard English (or BBC Received Pronunciation) so that translators won't have to decipher Texan dialect, ums, ers, and other vocal phenomena that a nonnative of Texas and nonnative speaker of English might be challenged by? The voice is slightly AHEAD of the words because it was dubbed in after the fact and allows the translator to hear the standard English and translate it in the foreign language essentially IN SYNC with the Texan delivery.
"So, this bill only appiles to governmental and financial computers "
No no no no no no. The second category covers everything on the net, entirely. The phrase "used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication" must be interpreted NOT in its commonsense meaning, but in its Depression Era Commerce Clause Inflation meaning. Under that interpretation, even growing wheat to feed to animals which you will eat yourself, none of this ever having to do with any trade or barter in the wheat or animals, IS interstate commerce for legal purposes. (The activity can alter how much wheat or meat you buy from interstate commerce channels. QED as the Supreme Court figured it.)
In point of legal fact any computer connected to the internet is in "interstate commerce" for purposes of US federal law.
Anytime you see the phrase "interstate commerce" just think to yourself "Federal power uber alles" and you'll understand.
If the content ain't gonna be on-line, because off-stage matters have kept it off-line, your rights to on-line access to the content are on the line, and so it is worthy of debate whether suppressing political voices that all ought to be on-line equally is in fact out of line.
I can personally testify to the near instant hack to death of XP re-installs and SP2 upgrades to get a firewall in place.
Once you are in a loop of hacked machines, which I got stuck in during August, they will recontact you within *seconds* of your having a live connection to the net. For me, a Verizon DSL subscriber, subject to numerous and sometimes successful backdoor assaults (nothing to do with email or other overt contact threats) because Verizon insisted I turn off my firewall when installing their code, I had to wipe the disk and reinstall XP several times before I finally learned that you can NEVER NEVER have any live modem connected to a powered computer without your firewall on and blocking everything you don't allow, every second from the first second. The attacks start coming at me LITERALLY within seconds of making net contact, and do so everytime I power up my machine these days because of prior involuntary membership in a circle of hacked machines, though they are all simply rejected now.
Ultimately, calling Verizon tech support got me the info that I can indeed set up my Verizon DSL account with their software with my firewall on, it just goes slower, but they won't tell me of every IP and port available to that IP that I need to have open to best connectivity to Verizon servers, so I have to sort of drive-by-brail to figure out which IPs and port calls are attacks and which are necessary to setting up the Verizon account when setting up. It's no wonder that most of the other infected computers attacking me the second I come on line are OTHER VERIZON customers who haven't figured out yet just how far they've been hijacked, thanks to Verizon's "turn off your firewall while you set up your account" crap.
Yah - you can't even take a breather as long as to download the latest updates from MS and to set up your DSL account, etc., without your firewall on from the first moment of electrically live contact to the net. I can peronsally vouch for that, more times over than I care to.
I'm running Norton Internet Security Suite 2004, on a XPSP2 OS because it came preloaded when I bought a faster home unit in August. I tried using a Panda 7.0 that I got talked into buying with it by a salesman who shouldn't have, but I switched back to the Norton preloaded because I came under a swarm of sometimes successful backdoor assaults and Norton allows me to relatively quickly integrate information about attacks and not have to rely on 3rd party software for various threats. It's "all in one".
For the last 3 days I've mostly been firewalling off a place called China with permanent refusals to allow connection, as various Chinese domains host attempted backdoor attacks on me, because of a steady stream of attacks seeking backdoor access (nothing to do with email or other overt contacts), but according to some news, those might ultimately stem from N.Korea routing through China. Unfortunately I'm a Verizon DSL subscriber and utterly responsible for all my own security at home, got successfully backdoored before I switched back to Norton, and I'm now stuck in a loop of other infected Verizon customers so that within 30 seconds of connecting to the net they all try to recontact me and reinstall me into the Verizon DSL infected customer loop, all on top of a steady stream of backdoor attacks routing through China.
Last night in one somewhat sleepy moment I accidentally permitted an unusual port contact (thought I was clicking on "block" but it slipped to "permit") and immediately got my host reset to an IP I can't even find in databases.
I suspect the recent resignation of the Homeland Security cyberdude has something to do with a massive attack on the US routing through China, which for whatever reason the administration is not willing to take the obvious steps about. So here I am, stuck applying my own personal UDP to any block of net addresses that I can find that are from China. They still come at me from other countries and the occassional hijackable computer in the US, though.
Of course, a quick Google of "Anton LeVay" and "Kerry" shows that the whole alleged meeting was a HOAX. That hasn't stopped hoaxed crap about 9/11 not being terrorist activity, etc., from gaining influence though. Michael Moore hoaxes to the tune of millions in profit. Seems the season to play any trick in the book, I'd say. Further, I qoute the Lord God on High Himself, Dan Rather, who informs us that we must not pay attention to whether the documents in question are hoaxes but rather whether the "spirit of the story" is correct.
Perhaps they finally will start howling about Kerry's expressed friendship and support of Anton LeVay (deceased) and his Church of Satan in San Francisco. This sort of thing matters most to the Christian sector, but probably has at least some sway in Centrist circles (which really matter at the moment) because of the Church of Satan's long term promotion of S&M as ritually important, (loooooong before it was all over the internet, or had even intruded into most porno mags) and the pedo-aspects of some of it. (The "temple" housing the Church of Satan in San Francisco was taken over by a long term friend of LeVay who is either currently in prison for, or was some time back in prison for, statutory rape, which seemed to involve his religious practices.)
Heck, the Muslims will be really thrilled to know they are to experience "reach out" from a guy who figures posing for smiling photos with the founder of the Church of Satan is just one of those things we all do to be tolerant and PC.
Slashdot Mirror
The Jedi religion is mostly Taoist thought in new wrapping.
This is minor stuff compared to what really appeared in Apple instruction books in the 80s. They had a lame joke about how your floppy disk usually comes in black vinyl, not black leather. Like I really need S&M references when I'm trying to figure out why the farking machine isn't doing what it is supposed to. Apple deserved to become 2nd place in computing.
Doesn't the trade union tap into employee knowledge of what the managers are doing, when they meet and don't, etc? Trade unions are properly called what they used to be called in the U.S.: criminal conversations.
Lots of chips at the election, with electronic voting, so who's bringing the dips? Oh, that's right, the major binary party structure.
I disagree that electronic voting is a fiat accompli. I've been doing it for several elections now, hate it passionately, and I am determined to see a return to mark the box with the blotting pen ballot, regardless of the wasted expenditures in those dubious machines.
I was wondering where the researchers who came up with the "1-in-10 people are gay" results were going to find work, noting the singular lunacy of their results compared to other researchers. Do they now estimate war deaths? Just as the gay community jumped on the 10% bandwagon, no matter how inflated that was, no doubt this pravda about 100k excess deaths is going to be trumpted as a great truth by some.
In what way is a local police decision to control the location of a mob to be attributed to Bush? You say "Bush's willingness to use cayenne pepper balls on harmless civilians" as if it wasn't a call the local police made.
"About the only solution I can think of that even approaches being fair is that they have to buy Badnarik 30 minutes of prime-time 30-second spots."
The University of Arizona did nothing to confer television coverage on the debate - the candidates provided that, so there is no deprivation of use of a public facility aspect in the television coverage.
The two candidates also have some right to refrain from "compelled speach", in the form of lending their media drawing power to others against their will. The excluded debater has no more legitimate expectation of being entitled to force another candidate to involuntarily confer upon them media attention outside of a debate than within the setting of one.
The only reasonable damage award would deal with any possible reduction in rental of the facilities used for the debate on the premise that it improperly conferred a gift of public funds without legitimate basis. This is an extremely doubtful prospect. Universities host all kinds of speakers to enrich their students college experience.
Really, there is no worthwhile damage action in this. There surely isn't a plausible claim to pay for air time because someone else exercised a right to not confer upon another their own media drawing power, against their own will.
"continues on to destroy the damned CPD by asking for the equivalent of their 2008 budget for damages."
There isn't the vaguest plausible legal theory to support such a damage award, and a lawyer would probably be admonished by a court for asking for such a specious damage award.
"1. While cancelling the debate would not serve the "American" public, the court issuing the decision does not serve the "American" Public either. What counts is the rights and interests of the citizens of Arizona."
Extremely few Arizona citizens seemed compelled to protest to a court about this. It appears that partisans alone are motivated to.
"2. The debate will go on, and one candidate will win by a narrow margin. This is probably what would have happened if Bandarik had been admitted."
Well, yes, but which candidate gets the narrow margin? That's important to those two. If you don't like their choice to exclude other debaters, judge the candidates for that choice as you see fit.
"3. The Arizona LP can argue some incredible damages for the loss of the presidency. This may help them in 2008."
Eeerk. Loss of the presidency is a ridiculous hope of a damage claim, laughable really. The most they can conceivably hope to gain is to be awarded a windfall (as private attorney generals) of the complete damage measured by the value of the facility rented to the CPD versus the value if the CPD were any other entity (say a commercial lecture presentation by a stockbroker) which should belong to the people of Arizona but might be awarded successful plaintiffs for being the ones to bring suit, and attorney fees, etc. There's no big payoff in these damages. The money is trivial probably.
That is in now way simple, except maybe in a wonderfully flat place like Iowa, and even then there are going to be density issues that make 6 angles too restrictive. There are legitimate considerations in oddly shaped districts, particularly if you live in geographicaly complex places like California or other mountain states. You can readily have parts of the state that for election purposes are sensibly lumped together because shared mass media outlets, roadways and travel patterns, and other considerations make them a natural arena of dialogue for the electorate. Meanwhile equidistant places are so "as the crow flies" but are socially remote in terms of how frequent interaction between the communities is.
Geology is diverse, and so are the shapes of many electoral districts.
Unfortunately it is NOT that kind of corporation.
f
See
http://www.opendebates.org/documents/REPORT2.pd
Discussion of the history of the CPD can be found here:
f
http://www.opendebates.org/documents/REPORT2.pd
Unfortunately many people seem to have a misperception that the CPD is a government created public service corporation, like the US Olympic Committee, the Post Office, or such. It's a straightforward insider deal between Republicans and Democrats.
What was Badnarik to do if the CPD refuses to accept court papers at its headquarters? If that is false, then retain the bad opinion, but if what the linked story reports is true, that CPD simply refused to receive the OSC at its headquarters, was Badnarik to simply go cry in a corner?
Unfortunately the issue is: when Green or Libertarian candidates cannot serve court papers at the usual service of address, because of improper refusal there, what are they to do? The issue is not whether they are good political ideologies, but whether the US Court system is to have meaningful roles in checking arbitrary actions of people in power (here, the CPD).
Does anyone know if the minibrowser in WinAmp (an AOL product basically) and the minibrowser in Real Player are IE based, or just what browser scheme these minibrowsers are based on?
I understand Britain's Silly Party, if their election monitoring team manages to show up, might outdo even the Democrats for associating themselves with dispised people as an election tactic. None of this namby-pamby shilly-shally halfway effort by creating an army of lawers (slightly annoying) when real irritants such as used car salesmen (very annoying) and telemarketers (extremely annoying) can be marshalled to dispute the election results.
If you cut taxes in the middle of a war, this means you must finance that war by borrowing, which occurs in the form of issuing government securities. If you have lots of securities outstanding, because you are one of the most stable security issuers around, this means you have a lot of people around who have a strong interest in your not losing a war, which would result in reducing the value of your securities that they hold.
Recall that WWII was financed primarily by bonds, not taxes, as have almost all modern wars in the last 200 years. The French Revolution, sparked perhaps most of all by default on previous bonds which had been issued to fight previous wars, lead to the Napoleonic Wars, themselves heavily dependent on who was purchasing government bonds to finance campaigning. Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton? BAH! The Exchange (London) bested the Bourse (Paris), more to the point! The remainder of wars from there on are wars essentially financed by BORROWING (bonds), NOT TAXES. Tax hikes in war serve to reduce consumption and thus prevent social ills of inflation due to scarcities, and as well make the populace feel they have a stake in the matter, but they don't primarily finance wars. Neither of these effects are needed in the US at present.
Don't thank me for the explanation. So many wars have been financed by borrowing and foreign policies influenced by what debt paper one is holding, that this is all very very old hat and well known. You don't need to be a Rothschild to understand the game, or even have read the US Doctrine on "Economic Warfare" that it derived in WWI and WWII.
How about: it's a voice over added to the tape speaking in standard English (or BBC Received Pronunciation) so that translators won't have to decipher Texan dialect, ums, ers, and other vocal phenomena that a nonnative of Texas and nonnative speaker of English might be challenged by? The voice is slightly AHEAD of the words because it was dubbed in after the fact and allows the translator to hear the standard English and translate it in the foreign language essentially IN SYNC with the Texan delivery.
"So, this bill only appiles to governmental and financial computers "
No no no no no no. The second category covers everything on the net, entirely. The phrase "used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication" must be interpreted NOT in its commonsense meaning, but in its Depression Era Commerce Clause Inflation meaning. Under that interpretation, even growing wheat to feed to animals which you will eat yourself, none of this ever having to do with any trade or barter in the wheat or animals, IS interstate commerce for legal purposes. (The activity can alter how much wheat or meat you buy from interstate commerce channels. QED as the Supreme Court figured it.)
In point of legal fact any computer connected to the internet is in "interstate commerce" for purposes of US federal law.
Anytime you see the phrase "interstate commerce" just think to yourself "Federal power uber alles" and you'll understand.
How is this topic about rights on line?
If the content ain't gonna be on-line, because off-stage matters have kept it off-line, your rights to on-line access to the content are on the line, and so it is worthy of debate whether suppressing political voices that all ought to be on-line equally is in fact out of line.
I can personally testify to the near instant hack to death of XP re-installs and SP2 upgrades to get a firewall in place.
Once you are in a loop of hacked machines, which I got stuck in during August, they will recontact you within *seconds* of your having a live connection to the net. For me, a Verizon DSL subscriber, subject to numerous and sometimes successful backdoor assaults (nothing to do with email or other overt contact threats) because Verizon insisted I turn off my firewall when installing their code, I had to wipe the disk and reinstall XP several times before I finally learned that you can NEVER NEVER have any live modem connected to a powered computer without your firewall on and blocking everything you don't allow, every second from the first second. The attacks start coming at me LITERALLY within seconds of making net contact, and do so everytime I power up my machine these days because of prior involuntary membership in a circle of hacked machines, though they are all simply rejected now.
Ultimately, calling Verizon tech support got me the info that I can indeed set up my Verizon DSL account with their software with my firewall on, it just goes slower, but they won't tell me of every IP and port available to that IP that I need to have open to best connectivity to Verizon servers, so I have to sort of drive-by-brail to figure out which IPs and port calls are attacks and which are necessary to setting up the Verizon account when setting up. It's no wonder that most of the other infected computers attacking me the second I come on line are OTHER VERIZON customers who haven't figured out yet just how far they've been hijacked, thanks to Verizon's "turn off your firewall while you set up your account" crap.
Yah - you can't even take a breather as long as to download the latest updates from MS and to set up your DSL account, etc., without your firewall on from the first moment of electrically live contact to the net. I can peronsally vouch for that, more times over than I care to.
I'm running Norton Internet Security Suite 2004, on a XPSP2 OS because it came preloaded when I bought a faster home unit in August. I tried using a Panda 7.0 that I got talked into buying with it by a salesman who shouldn't have, but I switched back to the Norton preloaded because I came under a swarm of sometimes successful backdoor assaults and Norton allows me to relatively quickly integrate information about attacks and not have to rely on 3rd party software for various threats. It's "all in one".
For the last 3 days I've mostly been firewalling off a place called China with permanent refusals to allow connection, as various Chinese domains host attempted backdoor attacks on me, because of a steady stream of attacks seeking backdoor access (nothing to do with email or other overt contacts), but according to some news, those might ultimately stem from N.Korea routing through China. Unfortunately I'm a Verizon DSL subscriber and utterly responsible for all my own security at home, got successfully backdoored before I switched back to Norton, and I'm now stuck in a loop of other infected Verizon customers so that within 30 seconds of connecting to the net they all try to recontact me and reinstall me into the Verizon DSL infected customer loop, all on top of a steady stream of backdoor attacks routing through China.
Last night in one somewhat sleepy moment I accidentally permitted an unusual port contact (thought I was clicking on "block" but it slipped to "permit") and immediately got my host reset to an IP I can't even find in databases.
I suspect the recent resignation of the Homeland Security cyberdude has something to do with a massive attack on the US routing through China, which for whatever reason the administration is not willing to take the obvious steps about. So here I am, stuck applying my own personal UDP to any block of net addresses that I can find that are from China. They still come at me from other countries and the occassional hijackable computer in the US, though.
I like Norton IS 2004 very very much.
Of course, a quick Google of "Anton LeVay" and "Kerry" shows that the whole alleged meeting was a HOAX. That hasn't stopped hoaxed crap about 9/11 not being terrorist activity, etc., from gaining influence though. Michael Moore hoaxes to the tune of millions in profit. Seems the season to play any trick in the book, I'd say. Further, I qoute the Lord God on High Himself, Dan Rather, who informs us that we must not pay attention to whether the documents in question are hoaxes but rather whether the "spirit of the story" is correct.
Perhaps they finally will start howling about Kerry's expressed friendship and support of Anton LeVay (deceased) and his Church of Satan in San Francisco. This sort of thing matters most to the Christian sector, but probably has at least some sway in Centrist circles (which really matter at the moment) because of the Church of Satan's long term promotion of S&M as ritually important, (loooooong before it was all over the internet, or had even intruded into most porno mags) and the pedo-aspects of some of it. (The "temple" housing the Church of Satan in San Francisco was taken over by a long term friend of LeVay who is either currently in prison for, or was some time back in prison for, statutory rape, which seemed to involve his religious practices.)
Heck, the Muslims will be really thrilled to know they are to experience "reach out" from a guy who figures posing for smiling photos with the founder of the Church of Satan is just one of those things we all do to be tolerant and PC.