Whoever told you there were no homeless people in Canada?
No one. I just assumed it since they seem to take care of their people there (health care/welfare/etc.). I assumed it in the same way the GP assumed there is no racial discrimination or "true freedom" here. I figured that if people are getting "free" health care, then those same people would get "free" housing.
Yeah and I loved Canada because they take care of their poor and homelessness is non-existant there... until I found out they have a hell of a lot of homeless people.
Don't believe what you read in the papers or see on TV. America isn't the land of 6'2" blonde cowboys.
I think this might be a great opportunity for all of the American Republican consultants to set up shop over in the EU. A heavy dosage of tax cuts and a touch of religious mania should do miracles for the EU economy.
Not likely. The problem with Republicans is when they cut taxes, they don't cut spending (or maybe that was the plan all along). Putting it on the card isn't too fiscally sound.
Still have to figure out what to do with all the Democratic tax and spenders running wild in their absence.
As of now, both bills have cleared committee and are now ready to be put to a floor vote. The Speaker of the House decides which bills go to a vote. When the bill is passed (or voted down, although this isn't likely because the Speaker usually only brings bills to the floor when he knows they will pass) it then goes to the Senate. If the Senate passes the exact same bill (doesn't attach any amendments) it is cleared for the President. If additional amendments are attached, the bill goes to conference and is worked on by representatives from both the House and the Senate. That new bill is then voted on again by each house and is then cleared for the President if it passes.
I have a feeling this bill won't be brought to the floor anytime soon, but there is a chance. I'm a pessimist by nature, though, so take my words with the requisite amount of salt.
This guy is why many paleoconservatives will never jump on the Libertarian bandwagon.
The situation for home users is slightly different, but the same principles apply. If you live in any relatively urban part of the US you will have at least two if not more choices for Internet access. If some or both providers try to charge extra or degrade your service then the providers need to offer some compelling reason to stick with them or another competitor will take your business. If you happen live in a rural area that can only support one service provider, then you've made your choice by living there.
Where one lives is often not a matter of choice. Even then, the people out in the boonies paid for the copper infrastructure just like everyone else and deserve to have access to the same services that those that happen to live in urban areas do.
In very simple terms our friend basically is saying "Look, the market will work if you live in an area where there is competition. If you don't, well then, screw you because bowing before the almighty power of free markets is more important than you getting any help from Uncle Sam to enforce competition."
These people are what I like to call "BSD libertarians". They believe that markets should always be left to their own devices at any cost. If these people had run the government, most of the great plains region would still not have regular telephone service (POTS). By definition, there is no such thing as a market failure to them. The market never fails. Conversely, the "GPL libertarians" understand that to have a free market, government intervention is sometimes required. This may often come as monopoly busting or net neutrality legislation.
Using the copyright/copyleft analogy: Assuming the goal is liberalized markets, the BSD libertarians don't seem to get that government power can be used as a way to make markets more open. The GPL libertarians do. Of course, the BSD libertarians will always give the GPL libertarians shit because GPL libertarianism isn't "truely free" because it uses state power to open up markets, but it ends up furthering the goal much better than no legislation at all.
*To avoid a BSD/GPL flamewar, I believe that GPL licensing and BSD licensing have their own niche for specific types of code and the goals of the author.
The obvious thing about all this is if the school finds such incriminating evidence on a blog then they should... call law enforcement. They can then get a warrant and search the student's locker/home/personal belongings. Last I checked, the principal is not an officer of the law.
I've always said that once I'm done with the world, I'm going to move there. I suggest it because I enjoy cold weather and its in the middle of nowhere, both being qualities I enjoy.
But "reporting" isn't profitable anymore. There has to be some sort of entertainment value or else people are going to change the channel. People are turning ignorant in pursuit of their bread and circuses.
My local FOX affiliate does about 20 minutes of coverage on American Idol every Wednesday. Obviously, there isn't anything more important than that that happened today.
I don't think its a stretch to say that if there were no such things as libraries, anyone who advocated for them would be immediately labeled as a communist pirate who wanted legal sanction to use the creative works of others for free.
That provision has meaning, and obviously the liberals on the SC didn't like the meaning. So much for the facade of the liberals standing up for the little guy.
I'm sure you know that the traditional terms of liberal and conservative don't mean the same thing when speaking of justices. Liberal here means a looser interpretation of the constitution, while conservative means a more strict, literal interpretation. I am what many would consider to be liberal, but I am for conservative judges. I supported Roberts because he seemed to be a conservative jurist. Alito, on the other hand, seemed to be an activist who wanted to expand the law in a conservative (using the traditional meaning, here) direction, rather than interpret the law plainly as it was.
Using those terms, it is easy to see why the liberals on the court would interpret the constitution in such a way.
This is important, for sure. It seems to be a good strategy to get your foot in the door to new users. If I hear about this "Linux" and it doesn't work with my shiny new ATI video card, I'm not going to think twice about switching from Windows.
Of course, this foot-in-the-door approach comes from the pragmatist open source line that promotes FOSS as a means to an end, rather than an end itself as the free software promoters do. The open source approach got me, but I was then lead to the ideas of the FSF, RMS, etc. By getting me in the door, I now know that I will buy hardware that does have open drivers. Without getting people to use GNU/Linux, the manufacturers will not care at all about open drivers since the market share will be so low. It is certainly a balancing act between principal and pragmatism.
I think this division will fix itself generally if GNU Hurd ever gets into a semi-usable state. The folks at Debian are making slow but steady progress porting their packages to GNU Hurd, but until they quit changing the kernel every three days, they're going to have problems.
On a minor note, Shuttleworth did endorse (I think) a sub-distro of Ubuntu called Ubuntu-libre that would be 100% FSF-approved software.
Giving your code away for free is stealing from your own retirement.
Explain.
Its going to be damn tough since it is theoretically impossible to steal from oneself.
What the GP is attempting to do is use the connotation of the word "steal" to make it seem like doing volunteer work is wrong. While volunteer work may not be the best decision with respect to economic interests, it is certainly not wrong or stealing from oneself.
Honestly, someone please explain to me how this is different.
Simply put, this is different because I don't believe for a second that this is a national security issue. I believe it's about the administration being pissed that someone told that they were doing something illegal.
If Clinton would have classified his blowjobs as a national security issue, I'm willing to bet that the Republicans in congress would have been claiming the same thing; news got out that damaged the reputation of the administration and they are invoking national security in order to go after those that broke the story. This all comes from the fact that Democrats will trust Democrats and Republicans will trust Republicans. No one believes or wants to believe that their party would attempt to curtail liberties in such a way unless there was a damn good reason. Seeing that I'm an independent, I don't trust either party. The really sad thing is that if we had a Democratic congress and president, the Democrats would be saying what you are saying and the Republicans would be saying what the Democrats are saying.
Slashdot Mirror
Peroutka and Baldwin of the Constitution party were just that.
Badnarik (Libertarian) is pro-life, but believes the government should stay out of it, and he's about as pro-2nd amendment as you could ever get.
Its about damn time you real conservatives (assuming you are one) got your party in order.
Oddly enough, Aldridge is on my foes list.
Whoever told you there were no homeless people in Canada?
No one. I just assumed it since they seem to take care of their people there (health care/welfare/etc.). I assumed it in the same way the GP assumed there is no racial discrimination or "true freedom" here. I figured that if people are getting "free" health care, then those same people would get "free" housing.
But anyway, that's not enough reason to call it GNU/Linux.
If you're using a lot of GNU utilities it is. If you're using tinycc and other replacements then, yeah, then its a stretch.
Yeah and I loved Canada because they take care of their poor and homelessness is non-existant there ... until I found out they have a hell of a lot of homeless people.
Don't believe what you read in the papers or see on TV. America isn't the land of 6'2" blonde cowboys.
I think this might be a great opportunity for all of the American Republican consultants to set up shop over in the EU. A heavy dosage of tax cuts and a touch of religious mania should do miracles for the EU economy.
Not likely. The problem with Republicans is when they cut taxes, they don't cut spending (or maybe that was the plan all along). Putting it on the card isn't too fiscally sound.
Still have to figure out what to do with all the Democratic tax and spenders running wild in their absence.
Vote libertarian?
As of now, both bills have cleared committee and are now ready to be put to a floor vote. The Speaker of the House decides which bills go to a vote. When the bill is passed (or voted down, although this isn't likely because the Speaker usually only brings bills to the floor when he knows they will pass) it then goes to the Senate. If the Senate passes the exact same bill (doesn't attach any amendments) it is cleared for the President. If additional amendments are attached, the bill goes to conference and is worked on by representatives from both the House and the Senate. That new bill is then voted on again by each house and is then cleared for the President if it passes.
I have a feeling this bill won't be brought to the floor anytime soon, but there is a chance. I'm a pessimist by nature, though, so take my words with the requisite amount of salt.
This guy is why many paleoconservatives will never jump on the Libertarian bandwagon.
The situation for home users is slightly different, but the same principles apply. If you live in any relatively urban part of the US you will have at least two if not more choices for Internet access. If some or both providers try to charge extra or degrade your service then the providers need to offer some compelling reason to stick with them or another competitor will take your business. If you happen live in a rural area that can only support one service provider, then you've made your choice by living there.
Where one lives is often not a matter of choice. Even then, the people out in the boonies paid for the copper infrastructure just like everyone else and deserve to have access to the same services that those that happen to live in urban areas do.
In very simple terms our friend basically is saying "Look, the market will work if you live in an area where there is competition. If you don't, well then, screw you because bowing before the almighty power of free markets is more important than you getting any help from Uncle Sam to enforce competition."
These people are what I like to call "BSD libertarians". They believe that markets should always be left to their own devices at any cost. If these people had run the government, most of the great plains region would still not have regular telephone service (POTS). By definition, there is no such thing as a market failure to them. The market never fails. Conversely, the "GPL libertarians" understand that to have a free market, government intervention is sometimes required. This may often come as monopoly busting or net neutrality legislation.
Using the copyright/copyleft analogy:
Assuming the goal is liberalized markets, the BSD libertarians don't seem to get that government power can be used as a way to make markets more open. The GPL libertarians do. Of course, the BSD libertarians will always give the GPL libertarians shit because GPL libertarianism isn't "truely free" because it uses state power to open up markets, but it ends up furthering the goal much better than no legislation at all.
*To avoid a BSD/GPL flamewar, I believe that GPL licensing and BSD licensing have their own niche for specific types of code and the goals of the author.
Their approval ratings, both parties, are starting to approach single digits.
And yet people will vote for them in droves come November.
The best part of the troll is that no one ever got around to changing the greater than sign to the less than sign.
The obvious thing about all this is if the school finds such incriminating evidence on a blog then they should ... call law enforcement. They can then get a warrant and search the student's locker/home/personal belongings. Last I checked, the principal is not an officer of the law.
I've always said that once I'm done with the world, I'm going to move there. I suggest it because I enjoy cold weather and its in the middle of nowhere, both being qualities I enjoy.
I hear Yellowknife is a good place to live.
No, actually.
They try to do "analysis" and go to the local bars (Dayton, OH) that have it on TV and ask the opinions of locals about "America's Choice".
It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Key word here is 'reporting'. Just stick to that.
But "reporting" isn't profitable anymore. There has to be some sort of entertainment value or else people are going to change the channel. People are turning ignorant in pursuit of their bread and circuses.
My local FOX affiliate does about 20 minutes of coverage on American Idol every Wednesday. Obviously, there isn't anything more important than that that happened today.
I don't think its a stretch to say that if there were no such things as libraries, anyone who advocated for them would be immediately labeled as a communist pirate who wanted legal sanction to use the creative works of others for free.
The listed prices range from $149 ... subtract $170 or so for the upgrade version
Sold!
It could possibly be because the program was unconstitutional. But don't let that get in your way. Anything for the War on Terrer.
Rambling screeds like this is the reason why my username has an orange circle next to it.
That provision has meaning, and obviously the liberals on the SC didn't like the meaning. So much for the facade of the liberals standing up for the little guy.
I'm sure you know that the traditional terms of liberal and conservative don't mean the same thing when speaking of justices. Liberal here means a looser interpretation of the constitution, while conservative means a more strict, literal interpretation. I am what many would consider to be liberal, but I am for conservative judges. I supported Roberts because he seemed to be a conservative jurist. Alito, on the other hand, seemed to be an activist who wanted to expand the law in a conservative (using the traditional meaning, here) direction, rather than interpret the law plainly as it was.
Using those terms, it is easy to see why the liberals on the court would interpret the constitution in such a way.
This is important, for sure. It seems to be a good strategy to get your foot in the door to new users. If I hear about this "Linux" and it doesn't work with my shiny new ATI video card, I'm not going to think twice about switching from Windows.
Of course, this foot-in-the-door approach comes from the pragmatist open source line that promotes FOSS as a means to an end, rather than an end itself as the free software promoters do. The open source approach got me, but I was then lead to the ideas of the FSF, RMS, etc. By getting me in the door, I now know that I will buy hardware that does have open drivers. Without getting people to use GNU/Linux, the manufacturers will not care at all about open drivers since the market share will be so low. It is certainly a balancing act between principal and pragmatism.
I think this division will fix itself generally if GNU Hurd ever gets into a semi-usable state. The folks at Debian are making slow but steady progress porting their packages to GNU Hurd, but until they quit changing the kernel every three days, they're going to have problems.
On a minor note, Shuttleworth did endorse (I think) a sub-distro of Ubuntu called Ubuntu-libre that would be 100% FSF-approved software.
Its going to be damn tough since it is theoretically impossible to steal from oneself.
What the GP is attempting to do is use the connotation of the word "steal" to make it seem like doing volunteer work is wrong. While volunteer work may not be the best decision with respect to economic interests, it is certainly not wrong or stealing from oneself.
The decision, IMO, goes right against the 5th amendment that says: ... nor shall private property be taken for public use ...
The fact that this was a local issue does not mean that citizens' rights are less protected.
This was a 100% constitutional (and 100% unpopular) decision.
That is a tautology and is meaningless. The SCOTUS cannot hand down an unconstitutional decision by definition.
Honestly, someone please explain to me how this is different.
Simply put, this is different because I don't believe for a second that this is a national security issue. I believe it's about the administration being pissed that someone told that they were doing something illegal.
If Clinton would have classified his blowjobs as a national security issue, I'm willing to bet that the Republicans in congress would have been claiming the same thing; news got out that damaged the reputation of the administration and they are invoking national security in order to go after those that broke the story. This all comes from the fact that Democrats will trust Democrats and Republicans will trust Republicans. No one believes or wants to believe that their party would attempt to curtail liberties in such a way unless there was a damn good reason. Seeing that I'm an independent, I don't trust either party. The really sad thing is that if we had a Democratic congress and president, the Democrats would be saying what you are saying and the Republicans would be saying what the Democrats are saying.
... the bugfixes are ported to the 2.4 kernels ...
Yeah, thats what I meant!
IIRC, most of the bugs in 2.6 are ported to the 2.4 kernels.