The GPL is a distribution license, not an End User Licence Agreement. EULAs are licenses to use the software. The GPL is a license to distribute the software. You do not have to agree to the GPL to use any GPL software. The GPL gives you more rights than default copyright gives. EULAs give less rights than default copyright.
I believe EULAs are invalid by the doctrine of first sale. But, of course, IANAL. I feel that if EULAs are upheld we're going to start seeing EULAs on automobiles and other such property. Imagine if the computer chip in a car would keep the car from starting if you weren't using a "certified" fuel filter or gasoline. Then if you tampered with the chip (your propery, mind you since you paid for it), the manufacturer would sue you under the DMCA. You'd scream bloody hell, but for some reason when it comes to software people take it in the ass.
Someone has already been modded down for noting that Al Gore never claimed he invented the Internet, so I won't rehash it. One thing I did notice is that it's (Al Gore, D-TN), not (Al Gore, D-DC).
Actually, to become a Muslim, all one must do is say (truthfully, and without reservation):
"There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His prophet."
But you're having a really good time distorting Islam, so I wouldn't expect you to let facts get in the way. I would ask you if one can be a Christian without believing that the Bible is the literal word of God. If not, I believe that there are far fewer Christians than we believe.
You do know that most "welfare" goes to help children. Now, you can argue that many families misappropriate the money, but in the grand scheme of things the money is so that children who are dependent on their parents don't go hungry. I too get incensed when I hear about people on the public dole who are simply too lazy to work, but there aren't too many of these people anymore after welfare reform. The only problem is that many of these people breed a bit more than they should. You can be mad at the parent, but are you really so short-sighted that you're going to punish the child of a horrid parent?
I don't have an answer for what to do regarding this situation -- perhaps have a case worker sign-off on any spending of public money so that dirtbag parents aren't using their kids as organic ATMs. I'm just saying that "welfare" is not what it was in the 80s. Most of it is spent on children these days.
How dare you question the Gods of the Free Market! There is nothing wrong here as this was a free market transaction and free market transactions are never wrong by definition.
First, your issue positions are all wrong. Didn't you know that if you're pro-choice, you have to be for universal health care?
Joking aside, when faced with the charge that the inheritance tax drives family farmers off their farms (a claim which, to my knowledge, has never been proven), a Democratic senator submitted an amendment to exempt all farmland from the tax. The Republicans shot it down. The same senator, IIRC, also submitted an amendment to exempt the first $10 million or so from the the tax. The Republicans shot it down.
Now, my numbers might not be perfectly correct, and I'm afraid I don't have a cite for this, but I'm pretty sure it happened. In fact, I believe the senator in question was Russ Feingold.
Most of the time, I end up playing a balancing game -- which candidate is the least offensive on the issues that I think are going to be the biggest in the next few years?
And that is exactly what they're counting on. They'd rather you take your chances with less and lesser rather than vote for a minor party or independent candidate. From the issues you described, I would think the Libertarian Party would be up your alley. Some of their candidates are very far out there, but voting for them is a vote for change in that direction. Voting Libertarian isn't necessarily a vote for no government, but a vote in the direction of less government. I voted for the Libertarian candidate (Michael Badnarik) in 2004 even though I disagreed very strongly with some of his positions. I voted for him to send a message that I wanted the government to move in that direction, not necessarily as an endorsement of his policies.
If one assumes that prices just go up due to the increased cost of production, then it is equally true that costs would go down if we simply subsidized business. The trick is to increase the purchasing power of the poor more than the prices for goods go up. That is why I don't advocate a $15/hr minimum wage.
Then, of course, there are social concerns. If I work full time, I should be able to support myself and have a modest living area. $5.15/hr is nearly impossible to do that.
I was sure I wanted to be a programmer/computer scientist when I was a sophomore in high school. After taking the classes, I decided I didn't want to really do that all my life (in fact, I didn't want to do it at all) and switched to a math degree. Math opens up some more options since it is arguably the most broad degree you can get in the sciences.
My advice would be to use caution when choosing a major and then decide what you want to do after you've sampled a bit of everything.
Technically she was withdrawn, so she doesn't count because we don't know how the Republican delegation would have voted. Even if you do count her, that makes a single case among hundreds of judges who were approved. There is always an exception to the rule. The rule is that the Republican senate (and quite a few Democrats in a futile show of "bipartisanship") approved anyone who Bush nominated.
Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation." I'll side with you on this one. There will never be any such rules because the Dems are owned by lobbyists, just different ones.
Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.
The article also goes on to say they'll reimplement pay-as-you-go, which was a Republican priority in the 90s. Also, a rollback of the tax cuts for anyone making over $200,000/yr.
Can I put 2% of my Soc Security payments into an IRA that I have limited control over?
No, because it isn't your money. Its a pay-as-you-go system. And guess what? Social Security isn't a retirement plan. It's actually called "Old Age and Survivors Insurance". Its an insurance plan.
Can a poor child that lives in a crappy school district go to a private school that was only accessible to rich white kids before?
I don't have any problem with school choice so long as my tax dollars aren't funding the functional equivalent of the FSM. I support publicly-funded charter schools in Ohio so long as they have to abide by the same rules as state-run schools. The government should regulate education, but it doesn't necessarily have to run it. On a tangential note, lets get the feds out of eduation by greatly reducing the budget for if not eliminating the Department of Education.
Did Bush judicial nominees get rubber stamped?
Yes, IIRC, Linc Chafee was the only Republican who voted against any of Bush's judicial nominees... and he is a lame duck nowadays.
What you can now expect is investigations into everything.
Just as the founders intended.
If you thought the 90's were bad, you haven't seen anything yet.
I'd sure hope so. Clinton lied under oath about a personal matter and then was impeached. Now, I'd have voted to remove him from office because you never, ever lie under oath, even if the question was bullshit to begin with. With Mr. Bush, I think the stakes are a bit higher.
The "Green party" candidate was actually an Independent Green, which the national Greens don't recognise for good reason -- they're pretty conservative. In fact, if you'd look at her website, she describes herself as a "common sense conservative independent". She mostly ran on a single issue, which was expanded rail service, but otherwise she ran on a conservative platform.
I'd venture a guess that most of these voters would have went for Allen if at all for anyone.
My point is that if the machine tally is "close" (close defined differently in different jurisdictions), the state will pay for an automatic recount by hand. If the machine tally is not "close", the challenger pays for the recount. I believe this is true in all jurisdictions.
So the obvious thing to do is to make sure that when I hack the election, is to be sure my candidate wins by enough to make it so a state-sponsored recount will not occur. That way, if the challenger does not have enough money to pay for a recount, there will be no recount.
The part that bothers me is that people will compromise on DRE machines with printers. The printouts never get used unless a recount is done, which effectively means the printouts are useless.
Also, I should note that I'm enough of a stickler to say that if candidate X wins 66% to 34% by the machine tally, and the actual paper ballots show candidate X winning 62% to 38%, we still have a very major and serious problem. Take that in mind when you reply.:-)
There's a damned good reason why in a lot of countries they're specifically illegal - because they ARE so unreliable.
If that is true, then why did the people in Ukraine cry bloody murder when the exit polls didn't match the official tally? In fact, many countries use exit polling to determine if elections in developing countries are fraudulent or not.
Remember FL in 2000? Paper ballots... are those punched ALL the way through or not?
The problem in Florida wasn't the the punch cards, but a clear objective standard that could be used to decide what constituted a vote.
I don't trust punch cards because I don't trust the machine that counts them. I do trust an army of people from all political parties involved counting the ballots by hand. I can wait a week while the final tallies come in (even though Canada can get it done in about a day). The exit polls will give a good idea as to the results anyway.
Unless you're in a state that has completely open primaries, it's unfortunate that you're not registered with a party, because you're effectively disenfranchising yourself, at least from voting in the primaries.
I am such a person. In Ohio, to vote in the primary you must affirm that you support the party that you are voting for, and affirm that you wish to be affiliated with the party. While some people might not give a shit (and the board of elections certainly doesn't), I do. I don't support nor do I want to be at all affiliated with either major party. Yeah, it keeps me from choosing the better of the candidates in the primaries, but around the general election they're all pretty much the same, so I'm voting minor party/indy when I can.
Come on! All it would take is a quick act of congress to confer "common carrier" status upon any ISP that censors material that our glorius leaders want to be censored. Do you really think our congress critters would open up Verison to tons of financial liability because Verison decided to censor a website that has ties to pedophiles? Not bloody likely.
If you assume that the voting of a minor party or independent candidate is a waste of your vote because s/he cannot win, you must also assume that if the challenging major party contender is behind by a very large amount, a vote for them is also a waste. For instance, voting for Goldwater in '64 or Mondale in '84 would have been a wasted vote since it was obvious neither would win. Logically then, you must vote for the incumbent since that would be the only vote not wasted.
The idea that votes are "siphoned" from one candidate and distributed to another candidate assumes that they originally belong to one candidate and are somehow stolen and given to another. Since I usually vote for minor party and independent candidates whenever possible, but I fall on the left side of the political spectrum, who owns my votes? In 2004, I voted for Michael Badnarik for president. Did Badnarik "siphon" a vote away from Kerry (whom I preferred over Bush)?
Ralph Nader got something like 15,000 votes in Florida. Had those people instead voted for Gore, Bush never would have been elected and we wouldn't be in the mess we're in.
Yes, and if Gore would have won his home state, he would have won. If he'd have ran a better campaign he'd have won. There are an infinite amount of possible ways that Al Gore could have won the 2000 presidential election. To single out one of them and declare that that is the overriding reason is very dishonest and lame. Basically you're saying "my candidate can only win if we force people to vote for him or his major party opponent". That would seem to indicate that your candidate is pretty piss-poor. As a fellow slashdotter has in his sig line:
American Democracy: One more candidate than communism.
And as an addendum, the problem with Florida wasn't that the punch cards weren't accurate, it was that there was no clear standard for what constituted a vote and what did not. In Ohio, we had a clear standard, so there was no arguing over "dimpled" or "pregnant" chads.
You sir, are sorely mistaken (and have confused paper-based tabulations, such as punch cards, with actual pen/paper ballots) .
I worked as a recount volunteer in the 2004 recount in Ohio. Paper tabulation is surely the most accurate way to count votes. The count went as such (but varied slightly from county to county):
There were 2 poll workers from opposite parties and observers from 4 parties* at each counting table. The poll workers counted the ballots in plain sight and everyone agreed what constituted a vote. Votes for Kerry were in one pile, Bush another, etc. We all then agreed how many votes were in each pile. This was slow, mundane, boring, and incredibly accurate.
I can recall in Greene county, after the 3% hand count was ran through the machines and matched our hand count, they ran the rest of the ballots through the machines as per the law. The numbers are fuzzy, but IIRC Bush gained several votes, Kerry gained 20-30, and Badnarik lost 3. One extra ballot was counted in the recount than on election day.
Our method was certainly more accurate than running anything through a machine.
*The recount specified that anyone who was registered as a candidate in the state could send volunteers to oversee the recount. The Republicans, Democrats, Greens, and Libertarians were the only ones that I ever saw with observers at the recounts. The Constitution party and other independent candidates were certainly allowed to have observers there, but chose not to.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't believe no one corrected you yet.
The GPL is a distribution license, not an End User Licence Agreement. EULAs are licenses to use the software. The GPL is a license to distribute the software. You do not have to agree to the GPL to use any GPL software. The GPL gives you more rights than default copyright gives. EULAs give less rights than default copyright.
I believe EULAs are invalid by the doctrine of first sale. But, of course, IANAL. I feel that if EULAs are upheld we're going to start seeing EULAs on automobiles and other such property. Imagine if the computer chip in a car would keep the car from starting if you weren't using a "certified" fuel filter or gasoline. Then if you tampered with the chip (your propery, mind you since you paid for it), the manufacturer would sue you under the DMCA. You'd scream bloody hell, but for some reason when it comes to software people take it in the ass.
Someone has already been modded down for noting that Al Gore never claimed he invented the Internet, so I won't rehash it. One thing I did notice is that it's (Al Gore, D-TN), not (Al Gore, D-DC).
Actually, to become a Muslim, all one must do is say (truthfully, and without reservation):
"There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His prophet."
But you're having a really good time distorting Islam, so I wouldn't expect you to let facts get in the way. I would ask you if one can be a Christian without believing that the Bible is the literal word of God. If not, I believe that there are far fewer Christians than we believe.
You do know that most "welfare" goes to help children. Now, you can argue that many families misappropriate the money, but in the grand scheme of things the money is so that children who are dependent on their parents don't go hungry. I too get incensed when I hear about people on the public dole who are simply too lazy to work, but there aren't too many of these people anymore after welfare reform. The only problem is that many of these people breed a bit more than they should. You can be mad at the parent, but are you really so short-sighted that you're going to punish the child of a horrid parent?
I don't have an answer for what to do regarding this situation -- perhaps have a case worker sign-off on any spending of public money so that dirtbag parents aren't using their kids as organic ATMs. I'm just saying that "welfare" is not what it was in the 80s. Most of it is spent on children these days.
How dare you question the Gods of the Free Market! There is nothing wrong here as this was a free market transaction and free market transactions are never wrong by definition.
Joking aside, when faced with the charge that the inheritance tax drives family farmers off their farms (a claim which, to my knowledge, has never been proven), a Democratic senator submitted an amendment to exempt all farmland from the tax. The Republicans shot it down. The same senator, IIRC, also submitted an amendment to exempt the first $10 million or so from the the tax. The Republicans shot it down.
Now, my numbers might not be perfectly correct, and I'm afraid I don't have a cite for this, but I'm pretty sure it happened. In fact, I believe the senator in question was Russ Feingold.
And that is exactly what they're counting on. They'd rather you take your chances with less and lesser rather than vote for a minor party or independent candidate. From the issues you described, I would think the Libertarian Party would be up your alley. Some of their candidates are very far out there, but voting for them is a vote for change in that direction. Voting Libertarian isn't necessarily a vote for no government, but a vote in the direction of less government. I voted for the Libertarian candidate (Michael Badnarik) in 2004 even though I disagreed very strongly with some of his positions. I voted for him to send a message that I wanted the government to move in that direction, not necessarily as an endorsement of his policies.
If one assumes that prices just go up due to the increased cost of production, then it is equally true that costs would go down if we simply subsidized business. The trick is to increase the purchasing power of the poor more than the prices for goods go up. That is why I don't advocate a $15/hr minimum wage.
Then, of course, there are social concerns. If I work full time, I should be able to support myself and have a modest living area. $5.15/hr is nearly impossible to do that.
I was sure I wanted to be a programmer/computer scientist when I was a sophomore in high school. After taking the classes, I decided I didn't want to really do that all my life (in fact, I didn't want to do it at all) and switched to a math degree. Math opens up some more options since it is arguably the most broad degree you can get in the sciences.
My advice would be to use caution when choosing a major and then decide what you want to do after you've sampled a bit of everything.
Was it right or wrong to pick quantum physics before I read the sentence?
Technically she was withdrawn, so she doesn't count because we don't know how the Republican delegation would have voted. Even if you do count her, that makes a single case among hundreds of judges who were approved. There is always an exception to the rule. The rule is that the Republican senate (and quite a few Democrats in a futile show of "bipartisanship") approved anyone who Bush nominated.
The first 100 hours under a Democratic House.
Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."
I'll side with you on this one. There will never be any such rules because the Dems are owned by lobbyists, just different ones.
Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.
The article also goes on to say they'll reimplement pay-as-you-go, which was a Republican priority in the 90s. Also, a rollback of the tax cuts for anyone making over $200,000/yr.
Seems like they do have a few ideas.
I don't have any problem with school choice so long as my tax dollars aren't funding the functional equivalent of the FSM. I support publicly-funded charter schools in Ohio so long as they have to abide by the same rules as state-run schools. The government should regulate education, but it doesn't necessarily have to run it. On a tangential note, lets get the feds out of eduation by greatly reducing the budget for if not eliminating the Department of Education.
Yes, IIRC, Linc Chafee was the only Republican who voted against any of Bush's judicial nominees
Just as the founders intended.
I'd sure hope so. Clinton lied under oath about a personal matter and then was impeached. Now, I'd have voted to remove him from office because you never, ever lie under oath, even if the question was bullshit to begin with. With Mr. Bush, I think the stakes are a bit higher.
Check your facts.
The "Green party" candidate was actually an Independent Green, which the national Greens don't recognise for good reason -- they're pretty conservative. In fact, if you'd look at her website, she describes herself as a "common sense conservative independent". She mostly ran on a single issue, which was expanded rail service, but otherwise she ran on a conservative platform.
I'd venture a guess that most of these voters would have went for Allen if at all for anyone.
My point is that if the machine tally is "close" (close defined differently in different jurisdictions), the state will pay for an automatic recount by hand. If the machine tally is not "close", the challenger pays for the recount. I believe this is true in all jurisdictions.
:-)
So the obvious thing to do is to make sure that when I hack the election, is to be sure my candidate wins by enough to make it so a state-sponsored recount will not occur. That way, if the challenger does not have enough money to pay for a recount, there will be no recount.
The part that bothers me is that people will compromise on DRE machines with printers. The printouts never get used unless a recount is done, which effectively means the printouts are useless.
Also, I should note that I'm enough of a stickler to say that if candidate X wins 66% to 34% by the machine tally, and the actual paper ballots show candidate X winning 62% to 38%, we still have a very major and serious problem. Take that in mind when you reply.
Then when I want to hack the election, I'll make sure it isn't too close.
The recount is at the loser's expense. If s/he doesn't have the money, there will be no recount.
So far we've made it harder to defraud the election, but not impossible. Let's try for impossible.
The problem in Florida wasn't the the punch cards, but a clear objective standard that could be used to decide what constituted a vote.
I don't trust punch cards because I don't trust the machine that counts them. I do trust an army of people from all political parties involved counting the ballots by hand. I can wait a week while the final tallies come in (even though Canada can get it done in about a day). The exit polls will give a good idea as to the results anyway.
Jesus of Nazareth says to love thine enemy. Jesus loves terrorists. Jesus is soft on terrorism and wrong for America.
I am such a person. In Ohio, to vote in the primary you must affirm that you support the party that you are voting for, and affirm that you wish to be affiliated with the party. While some people might not give a shit (and the board of elections certainly doesn't), I do. I don't support nor do I want to be at all affiliated with either major party. Yeah, it keeps me from choosing the better of the candidates in the primaries, but around the general election they're all pretty much the same, so I'm voting minor party/indy when I can.
Come on! All it would take is a quick act of congress to confer "common carrier" status upon any ISP that censors material that our glorius leaders want to be censored. Do you really think our congress critters would open up Verison to tons of financial liability because Verison decided to censor a website that has ties to pedophiles? Not bloody likely.
Usually when people assert things, they cite some facts that back up their position.
If you assume that the voting of a minor party or independent candidate is a waste of your vote because s/he cannot win, you must also assume that if the challenging major party contender is behind by a very large amount, a vote for them is also a waste. For instance, voting for Goldwater in '64 or Mondale in '84 would have been a wasted vote since it was obvious neither would win. Logically then, you must vote for the incumbent since that would be the only vote not wasted.
The idea that votes are "siphoned" from one candidate and distributed to another candidate assumes that they originally belong to one candidate and are somehow stolen and given to another. Since I usually vote for minor party and independent candidates whenever possible, but I fall on the left side of the political spectrum, who owns my votes? In 2004, I voted for Michael Badnarik for president. Did Badnarik "siphon" a vote away from Kerry (whom I preferred over Bush)?
Yes, and if Gore would have won his home state, he would have won. If he'd have ran a better campaign he'd have won. There are an infinite amount of possible ways that Al Gore could have won the 2000 presidential election. To single out one of them and declare that that is the overriding reason is very dishonest and lame. Basically you're saying "my candidate can only win if we force people to vote for him or his major party opponent". That would seem to indicate that your candidate is pretty piss-poor. As a fellow slashdotter has in his sig line:
American Democracy: One more candidate than communism.
And as an addendum, the problem with Florida wasn't that the punch cards weren't accurate, it was that there was no clear standard for what constituted a vote and what did not. In Ohio, we had a clear standard, so there was no arguing over "dimpled" or "pregnant" chads.
You sir, are sorely mistaken (and have confused paper-based tabulations, such as punch cards, with actual pen/paper ballots) .
I worked as a recount volunteer in the 2004 recount in Ohio. Paper tabulation is surely the most accurate way to count votes. The count went as such (but varied slightly from county to county):
There were 2 poll workers from opposite parties and observers from 4 parties* at each counting table. The poll workers counted the ballots in plain sight and everyone agreed what constituted a vote. Votes for Kerry were in one pile, Bush another, etc. We all then agreed how many votes were in each pile. This was slow, mundane, boring, and incredibly accurate.
I can recall in Greene county, after the 3% hand count was ran through the machines and matched our hand count, they ran the rest of the ballots through the machines as per the law. The numbers are fuzzy, but IIRC Bush gained several votes, Kerry gained 20-30, and Badnarik lost 3. One extra ballot was counted in the recount than on election day.
Our method was certainly more accurate than running anything through a machine.
*The recount specified that anyone who was registered as a candidate in the state could send volunteers to oversee the recount. The Republicans, Democrats, Greens, and Libertarians were the only ones that I ever saw with observers at the recounts. The Constitution party and other independent candidates were certainly allowed to have observers there, but chose not to.