No, not really. Its just that if the counts were off by only 1 vote*, the Greens and Libertarians could sue for a full hand recount. Basically, the poll workers didn't want to put in overtime just to confirm that, yes Bush did win, but by 1,000 fewer votes than originally thought.
*I observed recounts in 3 counties. In Greene county, the vote was off by 1 and the board said that sometimes that happens because of the nature of the punch cards. Needless to say, we weren't getting a manual recount.
I can say with much certainty that Bush received more votes than Kerry in Ohio. With the poor allocation of voting machines and some voter intimidation, I can't say that more people intended to vote for Bush than Kerry.
I have no doubt it sucked at the time. My point was that Kucinich had nothing to do with it, and that he made the best possible choice given his shitty circumstances.
I would advise you to read the wikipedia page on Kucinich. Specifically:
"There is little debate," wrote Cleveland Magazine in May 1996, "over the value of Muny Light today. Now Cleveland Public Power, it is a proven asset to the city that between 1985 and 1995 saved its customers $195,148,520 over what they would have paid CEI."
The bank Cleveland did business with and CEI had many interlocking directors. These directors pressured Kucinich to sell so that they'd end up making some serious money. Bankruptcy was the best option given the circumstances.
I'm an American who's trying to use Celsius. A dead-easy conversion formula is double and add 30 (for C->F). It isn't perfect, but it works well for most temperatures. Obviously, F->C, which is probably better for you is subtract 30 and divide by 2.
Concurrent sentences usually occur when multiple laws were broken during a single criminal act. So in this case, if the teacher would have killed all of the students, it is possible she'd get a "twofer".
Actually, there are no such things as natural rights. Or, if you want to argue it the other way, everything one could ever wish to do is a natural right and government is an agreement among people to protect some rights at the expense of others.
As to my "unconfirmed beliefs", that'd be 99% of what I think about in every domain. I've a confidence-based world view, not a conviction based one. So you'll have to be more specific.:)
Specifically, what is your theory of consciousness? How did consciousness develop over time and why do we have it and other living (and non-living) things don't? Is consciousness metaphysical in nature or is it simply about having the right algorithm? If it is the latter, then doesn't that imply that we are no better than computers this minute, only more complex? At what point do computers get rights?
Of course, I don't expect you to answer each question individually, I'm just spitballing at this point. I think if strong AI is true, it would challenge some very fundamental assumptions about life, ethics, and morality. I will be interested to find out if it is true, and I wish you the best with your research. And, if you could, please comment on how close you think we are to true "strong AI" intelligence.
So it goes without saying that you believe in strong AI. This supposes that the only difference between a sufficiently advanced "computer" and a human is their hardware. In fact, one would consider a human to simply be a computer with the mind being the programs. One could even reason that artificial intelligences could love, feel pain, etc. This, to me, opens up a very large ethical can of worms. Do AIs now have the right to vote? Can they own property? What are the religious implications? What are the implications for free will?
I am a believer in weak AI until I see evidence to the contrary. In fact, weak AI is why I'm agnostic rather than atheist. We are, at a basic level, made up of atoms which are not self-aware. Our individual cells are also not self-aware. But at some level, we become self-aware and have consciousness. This is the only argument for divine creation that I buy. I would have a very hard time dealing with the fact that the only difference between me and a computer is complexity. My emotions, desires, and dreams are effectively meaningless in that they are manufactured by inborn programming rather than some sort of deeper force. Indeed, if one could discover the nature of consciousness and self-awareness, that would probably be enough to change my opinions.
I would be interested to hear what you have found in your research as well as your unconfirmed beliefs, as well as any moral, ethical, or religious dilemmas you see on the horizon.
This makes me wonder why there is all this hype about K[U]buntu, which is dogged with all sorts of bugs.
Ku/Xu/Ubuntu is free as in beer. Of course, Freespire is as well, but they have the "we used to be Lindows and the community turned its back on us" gorilla on their back to this day. They've made good strides and I've suggested it as a Windows replacement to a few family members.
Another thing is that Ubuntu has pretty successfully taken most of the ideals of the Free Software movement and made a pretty polished distro that Just Works. They do a good job of straddling the line between idealism and functionality. I went to Debian Etch from Ubuntu Dapper mostly because I used a lot from universe which was updated regularly in Etch. And, of course, Shuttleworth has thrown tons of cash at Ubuntu in order to help make it the disto du jour.
I can't speak to how good either distro is because I've not tried them. If it works for you, that works for me.
Having kept an eye on cpt kangarooski's posts, I believe I can correctly say that there are still civil penalties for unintended copyright infringement. I also believe that making available copyrighted materials for distribution probably isn't illegal since there is no law that I know of that makes attempting to infringe a civil or criminal offense. So saying you'll make a copy for someone isn't illegal. It becomes illegal when you actually make the copy.
It looks to me at about the same level as I have a sensor on my garage door at the lower hinge... and the raccoons are eating it. So I think of the brainstorm of putting it on the upper hinge.
Ahh, this is quite obvious, but what about putting it on the upper hinge USING A COMPUTER? Doing any mundane thing is magically nonobvious when you're using a computer or doing it on the Internet.
Fifty? How about 10? Better yet, five with a five year extension. Anything more than that is off the table for me. And while we're at it, make it a commercial copyright.
Isn't there a free clone of Pine? Or did GNU just do a free clone of pico? If not, perhaps pine can be released under a BSD-style license if it isn't going to be maintained anymore.
A tax cut means that 'the wealthy' (as you are fond of calling all of us who have jobs) will have more of their money to spend. They'll have the money to fix the roof, add on to their summer cottage
If you have a "summer cottage" you are rich. Sorry.
This is the same thing. I would love to see a giant world wide trade war. Oh, it'd be painful for a time. But the US has more than enough engineering left to be self-sufficent, and think of all the millions of tons of carbon which would be saved by not moving chinese plastic crap back and forth.
Haha! And then China calls in our debt and we turn into a third world country overnight. Of course, we could always get congress to repudiate it, which would surely be followed by a shooting war.
I suspect (since I have no references to cite) that the "poor" often are in their situation due to bad money management.
The "poor" are that way for a variety of reasons, not just the one you stated. Living one paycheck away from being on the street changes your financial options. I would have been on the street if not for credit cards, which I used to pay bills until I could find another job. I'm still dirt poor because I'm working on paying them back (and then I have student loans coming up when I graduate this spring). What I'm saying is that for every person who spends 1/2 their paycheck on lottery tickets there is one who just got the short end of the stick.
Getting back on topic, I would consider broadband Internet access the best bang for your entertainment buck. If you play your cards right, you can do VOIP via Skype or SIPPhone, thereby killing your telephone bill. If you're open to infringing copyright, you can download pretty much any TV show you wish to see, including overseas shows you couldn't otherwise see using cable.
I believe welfare should be a state program with no mandates or interference from the Feds. Making it a purely state program will at least let different states experiment with different implementations that may be more suited to them.
If everyone did that, I think we wouldn't have these problems
Yes, if everyone were as kind-hearted as you, we wouldn't have such problems. The problem is that many aren't. The common libertarian/conservative counter to welfare is that private charities could pick up the slack. I agree that charities have their role to play, but unless you can guarantee me that no one will die of lack of necessities because the charities didn't have the resources to help everyone who needed it, I think government has a role to play as well. I simply don't believe the private sector has the resources (or the will) to make sure everyone has the necessities of life. If you could guarantee me that they would have the resources, I'd be for elminating the government program.
I highly doubt that, but if you can prove me wrong, I'd be happy to see it.
The reason I say that is because you don't have to accept the GPL to use the software. Putting the GPL as part of a click-through would be a restriction on the GPL which doesn't jive. Of course, if you just displayed the GPL, but didn't require the user to agree to it to install the program, that would be fine. Forcing someone to accept the GPL to install the program would be very unfortunate as it would go against the spirit and letter of the GPL.
Slashdot Mirror
No, not really. Its just that if the counts were off by only 1 vote*, the Greens and Libertarians could sue for a full hand recount. Basically, the poll workers didn't want to put in overtime just to confirm that, yes Bush did win, but by 1,000 fewer votes than originally thought.
*I observed recounts in 3 counties. In Greene county, the vote was off by 1 and the board said that sometimes that happens because of the nature of the punch cards. Needless to say, we weren't getting a manual recount.
I can say with much certainty that Bush received more votes than Kerry in Ohio. With the poor allocation of voting machines and some voter intimidation, I can't say that more people intended to vote for Bush than Kerry.
I have no doubt it sucked at the time. My point was that Kucinich had nothing to do with it, and that he made the best possible choice given his shitty circumstances.
I would advise you to read the wikipedia page on Kucinich. Specifically:
"There is little debate," wrote Cleveland Magazine in May 1996, "over the value of Muny Light today. Now Cleveland Public Power, it is a proven asset to the city that between 1985 and 1995 saved its customers $195,148,520 over what they would have paid CEI."
The bank Cleveland did business with and CEI had many interlocking directors. These directors pressured Kucinich to sell so that they'd end up making some serious money. Bankruptcy was the best option given the circumstances.
I'm an American who's trying to use Celsius. A dead-easy conversion formula is double and add 30 (for C->F). It isn't perfect, but it works well for most temperatures. Obviously, F->C, which is probably better for you is subtract 30 and divide by 2.
Concurrent sentences usually occur when multiple laws were broken during a single criminal act. So in this case, if the teacher would have killed all of the students, it is possible she'd get a "twofer".
Attacked?
It'd probably be less than 40 years if she'd have murdered one of them.
If we want to be more liberal with the phrasing ...
"Hot grits don't belong on Natalie Portman, and neither does Al Gore."
Canada Dry? Bah! Get a man's ginger ale like Vernors.
"Condoms don't belong in school, and neither does Al Gore."
Use in the following way:
"X doesn't belong in Y, and neither does Al Gore."
Examples:
"Cheese don't belong in hot dogs, and neither does Al Gore."
"Riker doesn't belong in the captain's chair, and neither does Al Gore."
*Note that verb tense can be changed at the leisure of the poster.
Here's to hoping that this one spreads better than the "Except in Nebraska" one of Steve Ballmer fame.
Actually, there are no such things as natural rights. Or, if you want to argue it the other way, everything one could ever wish to do is a natural right and government is an agreement among people to protect some rights at the expense of others.
Of course, I don't expect you to answer each question individually, I'm just spitballing at this point. I think if strong AI is true, it would challenge some very fundamental assumptions about life, ethics, and morality. I will be interested to find out if it is true, and I wish you the best with your research. And, if you could, please comment on how close you think we are to true "strong AI" intelligence.
So it goes without saying that you believe in strong AI. This supposes that the only difference between a sufficiently advanced "computer" and a human is their hardware. In fact, one would consider a human to simply be a computer with the mind being the programs. One could even reason that artificial intelligences could love, feel pain, etc. This, to me, opens up a very large ethical can of worms. Do AIs now have the right to vote? Can they own property? What are the religious implications? What are the implications for free will?
I am a believer in weak AI until I see evidence to the contrary. In fact, weak AI is why I'm agnostic rather than atheist. We are, at a basic level, made up of atoms which are not self-aware. Our individual cells are also not self-aware. But at some level, we become self-aware and have consciousness. This is the only argument for divine creation that I buy. I would have a very hard time dealing with the fact that the only difference between me and a computer is complexity. My emotions, desires, and dreams are effectively meaningless in that they are manufactured by inborn programming rather than some sort of deeper force. Indeed, if one could discover the nature of consciousness and self-awareness, that would probably be enough to change my opinions.
I would be interested to hear what you have found in your research as well as your unconfirmed beliefs, as well as any moral, ethical, or religious dilemmas you see on the horizon.
Ku/Xu/Ubuntu is free as in beer. Of course, Freespire is as well, but they have the "we used to be Lindows and the community turned its back on us" gorilla on their back to this day. They've made good strides and I've suggested it as a Windows replacement to a few family members.
Another thing is that Ubuntu has pretty successfully taken most of the ideals of the Free Software movement and made a pretty polished distro that Just Works. They do a good job of straddling the line between idealism and functionality. I went to Debian Etch from Ubuntu Dapper mostly because I used a lot from universe which was updated regularly in Etch. And, of course, Shuttleworth has thrown tons of cash at Ubuntu in order to help make it the disto du jour.
I can't speak to how good either distro is because I've not tried them. If it works for you, that works for me.
Having kept an eye on cpt kangarooski's posts, I believe I can correctly say that there are still civil penalties for unintended copyright infringement. I also believe that making available copyrighted materials for distribution probably isn't illegal since there is no law that I know of that makes attempting to infringe a civil or criminal offense. So saying you'll make a copy for someone isn't illegal. It becomes illegal when you actually make the copy.
Ahh, this is quite obvious, but what about putting it on the upper hinge USING A COMPUTER? Doing any mundane thing is magically nonobvious when you're using a computer or doing it on the Internet.
Fifty? How about 10? Better yet, five with a five year extension. Anything more than that is off the table for me. And while we're at it, make it a commercial copyright.
Isn't there a free clone of Pine? Or did GNU just do a free clone of pico? If not, perhaps pine can be released under a BSD-style license if it isn't going to be maintained anymore.
AFAIK, XP refuses to boot from anything other than NTFS or FAT32(/16?). The NTLDR probably doesn't recognize anything else.
It reminds me of a book called "Jennifer Government". It's one of my favorite books, and I'd recommend it to anyone.
Getting back on topic, I would consider broadband Internet access the best bang for your entertainment buck. If you play your cards right, you can do VOIP via Skype or SIPPhone, thereby killing your telephone bill. If you're open to infringing copyright, you can download pretty much any TV show you wish to see, including overseas shows you couldn't otherwise see using cable.
I believe welfare should be a state program with no mandates or interference from the Feds. Making it a purely state program will at least let different states experiment with different implementations that may be more suited to them.
Yes, if everyone were as kind-hearted as you, we wouldn't have such problems. The problem is that many aren't. The common libertarian/conservative counter to welfare is that private charities could pick up the slack. I agree that charities have their role to play, but unless you can guarantee me that no one will die of lack of necessities because the charities didn't have the resources to help everyone who needed it, I think government has a role to play as well. I simply don't believe the private sector has the resources (or the will) to make sure everyone has the necessities of life. If you could guarantee me that they would have the resources, I'd be for elminating the government program.
I highly doubt that, but if you can prove me wrong, I'd be happy to see it.
The reason I say that is because you don't have to accept the GPL to use the software. Putting the GPL as part of a click-through would be a restriction on the GPL which doesn't jive. Of course, if you just displayed the GPL, but didn't require the user to agree to it to install the program, that would be fine. Forcing someone to accept the GPL to install the program would be very unfortunate as it would go against the spirit and letter of the GPL.