'Republican' is both a noun and an adjective, while 'Democrat' is only a noun -- hence the confusion.
Good to know the democrats are freakishly sensitive about the slightest percieved insult.
Where I'm from (Ohio), people who wish to talk about the Democratic Party in a negative way use the phrase "Democrat Party". In other places (most notably, the South), many people call it as such. I'm just used to hearing it in a negative way. Upon reading the summary, I assumed the poster was attempting to put the Democrats in a negative light. I then realized that/. is not limited to Ohio and figured I'd give him a heads-up.
All joking aside, TFA says that Barney Frank opposes it. If there has ever been a rule of thumb in congress, its if Barney Frank opposes it, it will soon be law.
Re:FC5's release pushed back 5 days
on
Gnome 2.14 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
So what exactly shows that our country is doing better economically
Well the GDP.
What I'm saying is that the idea that the "economy"/GDP is doing well doesn't necessarily mean that your average middle class person is doing well, much less the man who lives on the street. An increasing GDP does nothing for the man with stagnant wages who can't afford to pay his bills anymore. I'm reminded of the following story:
You and your neighbor make an average income of $50,000/yr (assume each make $50,000). Your neighbor wins the lottery of $10 million. You and your neighbor now have an average income of $5,050,000. The average looks really good, but you weren't helped a bit. This is very basically what the GDP represents. The country, on average, is getting richer, but the same people continue to win the lottery. To put it in terms of the pie analogy, the pie is getting bigger, but many people are getting smaller pieces of the pie.
So we have a higher GDP growth rate (rate our economy is expanding/contracting)
Common wisdom and traditional liberal economic theory tells us that a rising tide lifts all boats. Due to increased neo-liberal policies it has been said that a rising tide now lifts all yahts. Our GDP has indeed shown decent growth, but unfortunately, most of the increased growth has benefited a small segment of our population. I recall Bill Maher saying on his show that the number of billionaires had doubled since 2000. Basically, I don't agree that better GDP numbers necessarily means much. I'm more worried about people being able to pay their mortgages, for college, etc. An increased GDP doesn't tell me anything about that.
Our unemployment rate is at a level that is lower than almost every other country in the world.
Other countries don't measure employment in the same manner we do, so its not a valid comparison. There are measures that are much closer to the way they do things in Europe, but I do not recall where they can be found.
The people in the party are Democrats. The party itself is the Democratic Party. In many parts of the US, calling it the "Democrat Party" is considered pejorative. Next time you may want to reword.
Many places in Europe, IIRC, you can't just fire anyone for any reason.
While there may be a legal right to terminate employees, one I certainly don't agree with, for any reason in the USA, it is ultimately counterproductive due to decreased worker morale. I know I'd think twice about working for a company who fires their employees on whims. I'd also do poor work if I had to continuously worry that today might be my last day.
I've been told that the recount was not conducted legally, as the precincts that were recounted were not randomly chosen, as required by state law.
Its true for certain values of "random". At one of the counties, a math professor who I worked with objected to it saying that the selection of precincts was not truly random. The Boards of Election decided that "random" meant a few numbers off the top their head. He said that "random" meant drawing out of a hat or using some sort of RNG to get precinct numbers. Another county decided that they would just use one of their largest precincts because they didn't want to count several different ones. State law also says that the hand count must be 3% of that counties vote. They decided to narrow the search to single precincts that contained at least 3% of the vote and then chose from there. That was certainly not random.
when the election is fairly close to begin with, it doesn't have to be as blatant as programming every voting machine to misrecord votes
I'm not saying there wasn't any sort of pre-election tampering. There could have been numerous logistical problems leading up to the election. What I'm saying is that I'm confident that the recount was conducted in a relatively fair manner. Our Boards of Election must have equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans on them, which is why I make that statement. As an aside, one of my most favorite anomalies was where a candidate would lose votes. It was a routine matter to see votes gained since if a chad were hanging in a certain way, the machine may or may not count that vote for a candidate. Losing votes was quite suspect.
I think you could get Thomas on board to declare this constitutional. He's the one who said that the government can detain an American citizen as long as it wants during the War on Terror(TM).
I live in Ohio and I was part of the recount team there. I participated in the recounts of 3 counties. I can say that I'm convinced that there was no removing of ballots/adding ballots for Bush. I will also say that there was some gross negligence on the part of the boards of election and our good friend Ken Blackwell. There was a reason precincts that voted Democratic had less voting machines.
Run to the right because the left isn't going to vote for anyone else (you don't want to waste you vote by choosing a minor party, would you?). As we have seen in the past 2 elections, that strategy is certainly a winning one.
As soon as you send me mine. In fact, it already occurs. We call them taxes.
You do not have a right to something just because you believe you have a right to it.
In fact, you only have the rights that you have agreed that the government has no business restricting. Without any government, I have the right to shoot you, copy your software and claim it as mine. I also have the right to make you and your family slaves. You also have the right to rebel against me. Government exists to restrict rights we naturally have for mutual protection. The rights the government restricts is solely up to the people who formed the government.
I reject your manifesto and summarily deny you any rights to anything I create.
You are certainly free to reject the gentleman's manifesto, but I do have rights to the things you create, at least under our current government. In order to get you to create things in the first place, you are given a monopoly on their exploitation for your natural life plus 70 years (assuming you are from the USA). At that point, the rights of the public to your work take effect.
If you are intent on your position, I suggest you lobby your congressmen to amend the Constitution to allow for an unlimited copyright term.
I was working with Fedora Core for awhile and wanted to try something different. I tried Kubuntu since, at the time, I was really big on KDE. Ubuntu/Kubuntu seemed to try to keep me from doing something stupid. It wouldn't let me really fool around, it seemed. I tried FC4 again, but this time with Gnome and I haven't looked back since.
That is why animals do not have civil rights. They are objects.
Bullshit. And fuck you for saying so. Its not often I get pissed on./, but you've hit a nerve. I'm sick and tired of people basically torturing their "property" and getting slapped with a $50 fine. People who torture animals should be sent off to Bellevue for extensive psychological testing.
For the truth in advertising, I eat meat. It is wrong to eat meat unless the animal from which it came was slaughtered in the most humane way possible.
There is no rational moral basis for conferring rights on animal
How about it is wrong to inflict unnecessary pain on a living creature? Animals are not simply property anymore than people are simply property. You're right on there being a cutoff and I don't know exactly where the cutoff is, but speaking purely objectively, there is a difference between torturing an animal of higher order and killing some bacteria on a countertop. I think the average idiot can understand that.
Even then, civil rights are an entirely human creation. There is nothing inherent in being human that says we have a right to free speech, but not a right to kill each other. All rights are based in social contract.
Remeber what the teamsters did with the UPS strike? They inflicted significant damage on the entire U.S. economy just so they could keep control of their slush^H^H^H^H^H pension fund.
No, I don't recall.
I'm glad they did damage the economy. It isn't anyone's responsibility in this country to do anything for the overall greater good of society. You seem to be for forcing people to work at dictated wages because it might harm the economy if they don't. I hope I'm not reading you correctly.
Or recently in California [...] But unions still hold way too much power, especially in the public sector where their control is so absolute that they are in effect one of the most power forces in local & state government.
Oh, you live in California. I'm from Ohio. There really is no union presence anymore in the rust belt. They only have a nominal influence in elections -- near the lake and in small pockets in the large cities. The 22-11 partisan split (in favor of Rs) in the Ohio Senate should be a good indicator.
I'm assuming the accusation is true for the sake of argument on this page. If its not really happening as such, then everything is moot (and wouldn't make much of a debate). I also don't know and will reserve judgement until all the facts are in.
Assuming the article is true and wholly factual, then my question still remains.
Others have said that some of those websites fall under forums and/or bandwidth-intensive sites. That may be the case. Apparently Air America has a free webcast, but I've heard that Rush Limbaugh's site has the same, only that it is on a pay basis (I wouldn't know, I prefer to steer clear of both of those sites). A previous post of mine mentioned that the military could have gotten out ahead of the story by saying that they knew how it might look, but they did have good reasons for blocking those sites.
If that was the case, all they had to do is come out when the story broke and said:
"Look, we screwed up. The policy was to block forums and bandwidth-intensive sites and we missed a few. We see how it looks, but it was certainly not our intent to block based on ideology. The problem has since been fixed. Questions?"
Various posters are commenting about similar situations in their workplaces where they can't visit any website they choose for one reason or another.
Most are missing the point. Why are they only censoring sites that tend to be anti-war or liberal in nature? I can accept arguments for general Internet censorship while in the armed forces, but I've yet to see a good argument for why only sites that espouse a particular viewpoint should be censored while others should not.
Slashdot Mirror
What will it take for competitive businesses to attack the current licensing standards and bring a real amount of change to the licensing structure?
Come on, you know the answer to that. As soon as it becomes more profitable to change, they will do so.
As far as your other questions, I am also intrigued.
Its also horrid grammar.
/. is not limited to Ohio and figured I'd give him a heads-up.
'Republican' is both a noun and an adjective, while 'Democrat' is only a noun -- hence the confusion.
Good to know the democrats are freakishly sensitive about the slightest percieved insult.
Where I'm from (Ohio), people who wish to talk about the Democratic Party in a negative way use the phrase "Democrat Party". In other places (most notably, the South), many people call it as such. I'm just used to hearing it in a negative way. Upon reading the summary, I assumed the poster was attempting to put the Democrats in a negative light. I then realized that
Someone is upset that linuxpoker.com was taken, eh?
All joking aside, TFA says that Barney Frank opposes it. If there has ever been a rule of thumb in congress, its if Barney Frank opposes it, it will soon be law.
Yes, they will.
So what exactly shows that our country is doing better economically
Well the GDP.
What I'm saying is that the idea that the "economy"/GDP is doing well doesn't necessarily mean that your average middle class person is doing well, much less the man who lives on the street. An increasing GDP does nothing for the man with stagnant wages who can't afford to pay his bills anymore. I'm reminded of the following story:
You and your neighbor make an average income of $50,000/yr (assume each make $50,000). Your neighbor wins the lottery of $10 million. You and your neighbor now have an average income of $5,050,000. The average looks really good, but you weren't helped a bit. This is very basically what the GDP represents. The country, on average, is getting richer, but the same people continue to win the lottery. To put it in terms of the pie analogy, the pie is getting bigger, but many people are getting smaller pieces of the pie.
So we have a higher GDP growth rate (rate our economy is expanding/contracting)
Common wisdom and traditional liberal economic theory tells us that a rising tide lifts all boats. Due to increased neo-liberal policies it has been said that a rising tide now lifts all yahts. Our GDP has indeed shown decent growth, but unfortunately, most of the increased growth has benefited a small segment of our population. I recall Bill Maher saying on his show that the number of billionaires had doubled since 2000. Basically, I don't agree that better GDP numbers necessarily means much. I'm more worried about people being able to pay their mortgages, for college, etc. An increased GDP doesn't tell me anything about that.
Our unemployment rate is at a level that is lower than almost every other country in the world.
Other countries don't measure employment in the same manner we do, so its not a valid comparison. There are measures that are much closer to the way they do things in Europe, but I do not recall where they can be found.
The people in the party are Democrats. The party itself is the Democratic Party. In many parts of the US, calling it the "Democrat Party" is considered pejorative. Next time you may want to reword.
Many places in Europe, IIRC, you can't just fire anyone for any reason.
While there may be a legal right to terminate employees, one I certainly don't agree with, for any reason in the USA, it is ultimately counterproductive due to decreased worker morale. I know I'd think twice about working for a company who fires their employees on whims. I'd also do poor work if I had to continuously worry that today might be my last day.
That needs to be said again and much much louder.
:-(
I would but the lameness filter won't let me
If people stop paying to make the movies then that type of movie will not get made in the future.
That is fine with me. They need me more than I need new entertainment. I'm betting they're going to blink before I do.
I've been told that the recount was not conducted legally, as the precincts that were recounted were not randomly chosen, as required by state law.
Its true for certain values of "random". At one of the counties, a math professor who I worked with objected to it saying that the selection of precincts was not truly random. The Boards of Election decided that "random" meant a few numbers off the top their head. He said that "random" meant drawing out of a hat or using some sort of RNG to get precinct numbers. Another county decided that they would just use one of their largest precincts because they didn't want to count several different ones. State law also says that the hand count must be 3% of that counties vote. They decided to narrow the search to single precincts that contained at least 3% of the vote and then chose from there. That was certainly not random.
when the election is fairly close to begin with, it doesn't have to be as blatant as programming every voting machine to misrecord votes
I'm not saying there wasn't any sort of pre-election tampering. There could have been numerous logistical problems leading up to the election. What I'm saying is that I'm confident that the recount was conducted in a relatively fair manner. Our Boards of Election must have equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans on them, which is why I make that statement. As an aside, one of my most favorite anomalies was where a candidate would lose votes. It was a routine matter to see votes gained since if a chad were hanging in a certain way, the machine may or may not count that vote for a candidate. Losing votes was quite suspect.
I think you could get Thomas on board to declare this constitutional. He's the one who said that the government can detain an American citizen as long as it wants during the War on Terror(TM).
I live in Ohio and I was part of the recount team there. I participated in the recounts of 3 counties. I can say that I'm convinced that there was no removing of ballots/adding ballots for Bush. I will also say that there was some gross negligence on the part of the boards of election and our good friend Ken Blackwell. There was a reason precincts that voted Democratic had less voting machines.
She's playing standard DLC politics:
Run to the right because the left isn't going to vote for anyone else (you don't want to waste you vote by choosing a minor party, would you?). As we have seen in the past 2 elections, that strategy is certainly a winning one.
When will you be sending me my money?
As soon as you send me mine. In fact, it already occurs. We call them taxes.
You do not have a right to something just because you believe you have a right to it.
In fact, you only have the rights that you have agreed that the government has no business restricting. Without any government, I have the right to shoot you, copy your software and claim it as mine. I also have the right to make you and your family slaves. You also have the right to rebel against me. Government exists to restrict rights we naturally have for mutual protection. The rights the government restricts is solely up to the people who formed the government.
I reject your manifesto and summarily deny you any rights to anything I create.
You are certainly free to reject the gentleman's manifesto, but I do have rights to the things you create, at least under our current government. In order to get you to create things in the first place, you are given a monopoly on their exploitation for your natural life plus 70 years (assuming you are from the USA). At that point, the rights of the public to your work take effect.
If you are intent on your position, I suggest you lobby your congressmen to amend the Constitution to allow for an unlimited copyright term.
I'm off to patent my perpetual motion machine!
I know what you mean.
I was working with Fedora Core for awhile and wanted to try something different. I tried Kubuntu since, at the time, I was really big on KDE. Ubuntu/Kubuntu seemed to try to keep me from doing something stupid. It wouldn't let me really fool around, it seemed. I tried FC4 again, but this time with Gnome and I haven't looked back since.
The best I can think of is to first anesthetize the animal (ie. "put them down") and then slaughter them.
That is why animals do not have civil rights. They are objects.
./, but you've hit a nerve. I'm sick and tired of people basically torturing their "property" and getting slapped with a $50 fine. People who torture animals should be sent off to Bellevue for extensive psychological testing.
Bullshit. And fuck you for saying so. Its not often I get pissed on
For the truth in advertising, I eat meat. It is wrong to eat meat unless the animal from which it came was slaughtered in the most humane way possible.
There is no rational moral basis for conferring rights on animal
How about it is wrong to inflict unnecessary pain on a living creature? Animals are not simply property anymore than people are simply property. You're right on there being a cutoff and I don't know exactly where the cutoff is, but speaking purely objectively, there is a difference between torturing an animal of higher order and killing some bacteria on a countertop. I think the average idiot can understand that.
Even then, civil rights are an entirely human creation. There is nothing inherent in being human that says we have a right to free speech, but not a right to kill each other. All rights are based in social contract.
I forgot about teacher's unions.
Remeber what the teamsters did with the UPS strike? They inflicted significant damage on the entire U.S. economy just so they could keep control of their slush^H^H^H^H^H pension fund.
No, I don't recall.
I'm glad they did damage the economy. It isn't anyone's responsibility in this country to do anything for the overall greater good of society. You seem to be for forcing people to work at dictated wages because it might harm the economy if they don't. I hope I'm not reading you correctly.
Or recently in California [...] But unions still hold way too much power, especially in the public sector where their control is so absolute that they are in effect one of the most power forces in local & state government.
Oh, you live in California. I'm from Ohio. There really is no union presence anymore in the rust belt. They only have a nominal influence in elections -- near the lake and in small pockets in the large cities. The 22-11 partisan split (in favor of Rs) in the Ohio Senate should be a good indicator.
I'm assuming the accusation is true for the sake of argument on this page. If its not really happening as such, then everything is moot (and wouldn't make much of a debate). I also don't know and will reserve judgement until all the facts are in.
Assuming the article is true and wholly factual, then my question still remains.
Others have said that some of those websites fall under forums and/or bandwidth-intensive sites. That may be the case. Apparently Air America has a free webcast, but I've heard that Rush Limbaugh's site has the same, only that it is on a pay basis (I wouldn't know, I prefer to steer clear of both of those sites). A previous post of mine mentioned that the military could have gotten out ahead of the story by saying that they knew how it might look, but they did have good reasons for blocking those sites.
I'm having problems buying that.
If that was the case, all they had to do is come out when the story broke and said:
"Look, we screwed up. The policy was to block forums and bandwidth-intensive sites and we missed a few. We see how it looks, but it was certainly not our intent to block based on ideology. The problem has since been fixed. Questions?"
I post there and I'm proud to say I'm not a Democrat. The vast majority are Democrats, but not everyone there.
Various posters are commenting about similar situations in their workplaces where they can't visit any website they choose for one reason or another.
Most are missing the point. Why are they only censoring sites that tend to be anti-war or liberal in nature? I can accept arguments for general Internet censorship while in the armed forces, but I've yet to see a good argument for why only sites that espouse a particular viewpoint should be censored while others should not.