So if it doesn't affect my day-to-day life, I shouldn't mind.
"It's only the Jews and Communists that are being imprisoned. What do I care?"
And America isn't really that great. 3Mb asymmetrical broadband with dynamic IP? Fuck that. 40 million people without health care? Fuck that, too. Tax money going to kill nice, innocent, benevolent people in a stupid war started by lies? Fuck that especially.
The only thing that's kept me from leaving is the fact that I'm not rich or experienced enough to go.
However, there is a condition where I won't go: If a movement starts to oppose the government, one that shares my beliefs in decentralization, breaking the corporate oligarchy, environmental protection and human rights. And that has a chance of changing things. I'll stay for that.
But if this country decides it's behind a man who stands for everything I oppose, why should I stay? It would be perfectly obvious that my views aren't represented, and are in disagreement with the vast majority of the population.
I'm an extreme minority in this country. My views *will never* be represented by a major party, especially when we are ruled by only two parties, and those parties aren't vying for the votes of a majority, but of a minority of people who are so far to the right of me that they look like Nazis.
I guess my only option, if I want true representation in a government that affects me, is to move to the Netherlands or Denmark.
Kerry is pandering to a group of voters who are easily mislead, easily scared, and easily overwhelmed; "security moms." If they are the only groups whose views he is stating he believes, then where does that leave me?
It leaves me with a choice: Vote for a man who is center left, or vote for a true leftist and leave the center-right man in office so he can screw things up.
I'm not afraid of a draft, and Kerry won't truly remove the corporate oligarchy and work for workers' rights around the world; which are the only two issues I really feel matter. So why shouldn't I vote for Cobb if I feel that Kerry will be less worse than Bush?
It would be democracy if the pandering:
a)Didn't contradict itself and
b)They actually believed in the stuff they were saying.
I don't doubt that David Cobb believes the things he says. I do doubt highly that Kerry will actually attempt to enact the 50% of the democratic platform that I agree with.
And I'm sure most of the people in the US agree with me. How do I know? Because Kerry isn't mopping the floor with Bush.
If the Dems had the balls to run someone who actually believed in more than personal profit or political gain or pandering or changing anything, maybe I'd vote for them; maybe I'd consider not changing my party affiliation.
But as it is, all I see in the Democratic party is someone saying they're not quite as far right as Bush, and that's not someone I can stand voting for.
the only way candidate X is going to lose is if he says he wants to change the constitution to allow Osama bin Laden to run for president
Republicans have come on record saying that they approve an amendment to the constitution so people born in foreign countries *cough*Ahnuld*cough* can run for President.
Yes, but I don't *like* Kerry, and don't think he'll change anything. So I'm voting for Cobb in a swing state. And if that means Bush wins the election, good. Maybe then the Democrats will realize that pandering to voters isn't the right thing to do.
I oppose war. I oppose corporations. And I oppose centralization of power. So I vote Green.
Besides, the Dems will win in a landslide if Bush screws up his next administration as much as he screwed up this one.
Why must intelligent design occur if there is a God?
And, if we were intelligently designed, then there is evidence of God, who is a creature of faith. Since there's evidence, there is no need for faith, and God poofs out of existence.
The near side of the moon always faces the earth because of gravity. The near side is heavier, and so gets pulled towards the earth. This slowed its revolution so the heaviest side would always point towards the earth.
And the platypus breaks no theories. It's a monotreme, so it lays eggs, and it's fleshy bill is laden with touch receptors so it can find worms in muddy water. How does this break theories?
Ever listen to Pat Robertson? Granted, he's not killing people, but he wants everyone to become Christian and wants people to stop 'immoral' behavior. So, aside from the usury provision, most Xian fundies would probably agree that ending adultery and homosexuality and removal of the seperation of church and state are all good things.
And the point isn't what bin Laden wants. It's that we're giving people reasons to listen to him. I'm sure there are crazies in America who advocate similar things. But since people don't support them, their video tapes aren't shown on CNN to scare Soccer Moms.
How do we remove support for bin Laden? Not by killing Muslims, but by healing the rifts between our cultures. And you don't make friends by killing people.
Bin Laden knows as well as anyone that the party in the White House doesn't matter. What it will take is an insurrection or revolution to change US foreign policy.
Besides, if there are more preemptive wars, that just means more anger in the Muslim world, and more recruits for bin Laden.
The only thing 'Mosh' shows us is that people are pissed off enough that such a song can be popular.
But it could got three ways: People vote for Kerry because they're pissed off and Eminem tells them to, and Kerry wins. Or Bush wins and people take Em's call for an army seriously and we have an insurrection, or they realize it doesn't matter and go back to slaving for minimum wage.
I can see a benefit. Imagine archiving your DVD library on your PC so it's all available at all times without leaving the couch? That would be pretty cool.
And it can function like a TiVo/ReplayTV, but without the annoying monthly fee.
Maybe because you already have broadband and we should work on at least getting people online before we worry about the poor little New Yorkian who's only got a 5 meg connection?
Re:Stratellite is the wave of the future...
on
Broadband Bits
·
· Score: 1
Radio waves are light.
They move at almost c, depending on what they're travelling through. Glass is more dense and so it slows it down a little. Air is less dense, so it slows it down less. Copper is slower still. *Any* cable will transmit data slower than transmitting it. The problem with transmissions isn't that the rate is slower, it's that it's an unknown environment. There's all kinds of interference out there that you generally don't have to deal with when you use cable.
Also, latency is high for satellite 'broadband' because it's got to travel 44,000 miles to get from the ground to the satellite and back down again.
Slashdot Mirror
You might be interested in the fact that I voted for Kerry while a nice lady in MA voted for Cobb for me.
"It's only the Jews and Communists that are being imprisoned. What do I care?"
And America isn't really that great. 3Mb asymmetrical broadband with dynamic IP? Fuck that. 40 million people without health care? Fuck that, too. Tax money going to kill nice, innocent, benevolent people in a stupid war started by lies? Fuck that especially.
The only thing that's kept me from leaving is the fact that I'm not rich or experienced enough to go.
However, there is a condition where I won't go: If a movement starts to oppose the government, one that shares my beliefs in decentralization, breaking the corporate oligarchy, environmental protection and human rights. And that has a chance of changing things. I'll stay for that.
But if this country decides it's behind a man who stands for everything I oppose, why should I stay? It would be perfectly obvious that my views aren't represented, and are in disagreement with the vast majority of the population.
Dear Friend,
If the dumbass gets reelected, can I come crash at your place?
Thanks,
NardofDoom
A nice lady in MA voted for Cobb for me so I could vote for Kerry and sleep at night.
No, where's it from? I've heard it a lot, and was wondering.
I guess my only option, if I want true representation in a government that affects me, is to move to the Netherlands or Denmark.
Kerry is pandering to a group of voters who are easily mislead, easily scared, and easily overwhelmed; "security moms." If they are the only groups whose views he is stating he believes, then where does that leave me?
It leaves me with a choice: Vote for a man who is center left, or vote for a true leftist and leave the center-right man in office so he can screw things up.
I'm not afraid of a draft, and Kerry won't truly remove the corporate oligarchy and work for workers' rights around the world; which are the only two issues I really feel matter. So why shouldn't I vote for Cobb if I feel that Kerry will be less worse than Bush?
a)Didn't contradict itself and
b)They actually believed in the stuff they were saying.
I don't doubt that David Cobb believes the things he says. I do doubt highly that Kerry will actually attempt to enact the 50% of the democratic platform that I agree with.
And I'm sure most of the people in the US agree with me. How do I know? Because Kerry isn't mopping the floor with Bush.
If the Dems had the balls to run someone who actually believed in more than personal profit or political gain or pandering or changing anything, maybe I'd vote for them; maybe I'd consider not changing my party affiliation.
But as it is, all I see in the Democratic party is someone saying they're not quite as far right as Bush, and that's not someone I can stand voting for.
'cept there were more jobs when FDR left office.
Republicans have come on record saying that they approve an amendment to the constitution so people born in foreign countries *cough*Ahnuld*cough* can run for President.
I oppose war. I oppose corporations. And I oppose centralization of power. So I vote Green.
Besides, the Dems will win in a landslide if Bush screws up his next administration as much as he screwed up this one.
Co(++#)G
And, if we were intelligently designed, then there is evidence of God, who is a creature of faith. Since there's evidence, there is no need for faith, and God poofs out of existence.
And the platypus breaks no theories. It's a monotreme, so it lays eggs, and it's fleshy bill is laden with touch receptors so it can find worms in muddy water. How does this break theories?
If Jesus himself came back with Stephen J. Gould and told them all that they're idiots and evolution is the best theory, they wouldn't believe it.
To paraphrase: "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."
Oh, you mean "versus." Now I get it.
And the point isn't what bin Laden wants. It's that we're giving people reasons to listen to him. I'm sure there are crazies in America who advocate similar things. But since people don't support them, their video tapes aren't shown on CNN to scare Soccer Moms.
How do we remove support for bin Laden? Not by killing Muslims, but by healing the rifts between our cultures. And you don't make friends by killing people.
Besides, if there are more preemptive wars, that just means more anger in the Muslim world, and more recruits for bin Laden.
But it could got three ways: People vote for Kerry because they're pissed off and Eminem tells them to, and Kerry wins. Or Bush wins and people take Em's call for an army seriously and we have an insurrection, or they realize it doesn't matter and go back to slaving for minimum wage.
And it can function like a TiVo/ReplayTV, but without the annoying monthly fee.
And, besides, it's a geeky thing to do.
Yay China! Let's buy more of their crap!
Maybe because you already have broadband and we should work on at least getting people online before we worry about the poor little New Yorkian who's only got a 5 meg connection?
No banner ads, 3gigs of space, 30gigs of bandwidth, PHP/MySQL, mod-perl, custom CGIs running on Apache/Red Hat for $10/month
They move at almost c, depending on what they're travelling through. Glass is more dense and so it slows it down a little. Air is less dense, so it slows it down less. Copper is slower still. *Any* cable will transmit data slower than transmitting it. The problem with transmissions isn't that the rate is slower, it's that it's an unknown environment. There's all kinds of interference out there that you generally don't have to deal with when you use cable.
Also, latency is high for satellite 'broadband' because it's got to travel 44,000 miles to get from the ground to the satellite and back down again.
Thank $deity I'm moving to Europe once Bush gets reappointed.