Damn, where is that Krautrock revival when you need it most?
There sort of has been one, just (mostly) outside of Germany. If you're into the old Kraut stuff check out
Stereolab
and the more recent work of Boredoms. Liars also recorded their most recent album in Germany, and it definitly sounds Faust-influenced.
This 'reform' legislation is paid for credit card companies and other loan institutions. They want to squeeze every last penny out of consumers. Corporations are not the target, this targets chapter 7 bankruptcies (the type most often filed by individuals).
It currently allows you to narrow your search down to one existing section. It would be nice to be able to select multiple sections to search from; for example, I created an "Apple" section, and I would like to be able to pull the results from both "sci/tech" and "business". Instead I'm stuck putting it in "All Sections", and the number one story is "Golden Apple Wows Teacher".
I would also like to be able to filter out stories with certain keywords. I created a "Music" section, and I would like to get rid of stories that contain the phrase "face the music" (most of them not being music-related). Even when the search is narrowed down to the entertainment section, I'm still seeing results about Dan Rather. And I wouldn't mind being able to get rid of the Michael Jackson stories.
I also recognize that it's validated by your taste and mine as opposed to some concrete truth. WHat if you had a perpetual Jones for pap and sentimentality? Definitly. Didn't mean to get all elitist on you, I have nothing against sentimental pop music. However I think the major labels do not filter based on any sort of quality. What you see on MTV or hear on Top 40 radio has more to do with marketing than anything else.
I just think that you can get free content and a free filter if you are willing to search it out. I didn't mean to give the impression that I was disagreeing with you there. I personally rely on word of mouth and online music publications/blogs (pitchforkmedia.com, fakejazz.com and cocaineblunts.com are pretty good). I will be sure to check out the podcasts you mentioned.
But because you don't have a record label filtering out crappy content for you, you have to spend time and effort either (1) lucking into quality content or (2) finding a free filter
You seem to be under the impression that the major labels filter our crappy content.
The music search seems to be absolutely worthless. I was hoping it would aggregate legal, free mp3 music - but instead you're just searching their online music store. What BS. Below are some of the indie artists I searched for - and a link to the readily available and FREE mp3s they are giving away that MS has decided not to include in its "music search".
guys behind South Park) got hammered because they said, basically, that if you're clueless don't bother to vote.
And they followed up with an episode of South Park featuring an election between "Giant Douche" and "Turd Sandwich", complete with Puff Daddy and his Vote Or Die (bitch!) campaign.
Simple solution, make everyone get Civil Union, and leave marriage upto the church.
So as a heterosexual atheist, should I be allowed to get married? The state is willing to perform the marriage for me; why not for gays?
No one is saying churches would have to recognize gay marriages. As long as the state recognizes and performs marriage, it should be available to all people.
They did not just rule on that, they said that abortion is to be law, and a "right" Actually they ruled that the desicion to have an abortion falls under the right of privacy, not that it was it's own seperate right.
This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.
However, they go on to say:
On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization).
We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.
Meaning they did not rule that there was an absolute right to an abortion.
What they did rule was that
All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn
So they don't feel that the 14th ammendment applies. I think that's morally wrong, but that's what they decided. There is a difference between this and passing a law saying "abortions are legal".
if that is not writeing a law, I don't know what is
except by that definition, a reversal of Roe v. Wade would be "legislating from the bench" as well. Before this decision, there had to be a law
Hmm. I personally am opposed to abortion unless the mother's life is in danger, but when you write:
Also the Constitution does not give the courts the right to write law, all it can do is interpret the law or determine if a law is constitutional, Roe vs. Wade was the SCOUS [sic] wrote a law in that ruling there for it is an unconstitutional ruling.
you are incorrect. SCOTUS didn't "write a law". Roe vs. Wade was a ruling on the constitutionality of existing laws criminalizing abortion. So even though we may not agree with their ruling, it was within their constitutionaly granted power to do so.
If the sender makes a typo, how do I know I am NOT the intended recipient? It says so right at the top, and the sender's server clearly sent it directly to my server I'm not a lawyer though, so this is just speculation - but I'd imagine if there is nothing to indicate that you aren't the intended recipiant than you're in the clear.
If I *am* the intended recipient, then I can pass along any or all of the email I want to... INCLUDING THE DISCLAIMER:) A common disclaimer will include "This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed." So you aren't supposed to send it outside your company. If that's not included then the whole disclaimer is pointless and stupid.
Since there is no legal benefit, why include the disclaimer at all? This is my big beef and made me whip out the M word. It seems that the point is to protect themselves in case you start spreading company secrets, they can say you were told not to. Like I said, if the part about confidentiality is not included (though it usually is in my experience), then it is stupid and you are correct.
A detail that's often either implied or just forgotten is this: A tenet of the democrats is to help the disadvantaged with other peoples' earnings.
True, but Republicans also like to spend other peoples money. Mostly on "defense", much of it being wasteful or just plain pork*. I respect the Libertarian position, but the Republican position is pretty nasty in my eyes - they are happy to spend our money on killing people and pork projects but refuse to help people in need. That's just amoral in my eyes.
Not that I'm really defending the Democrats per say - when it came down to it, they chose to end social welfare as we know it but didn't cut back their own cronyism.
that stupid ass disclaimer on the email just makes the sender look like a moron.
I have to deal with big corporations at work, this kind of disclaimer is pretty standard. The sender doesn't really have a choice whether or not to include it.
The volunteer army works in peace time with great benefits, and it works with a popular, defend the homeland, patriotic war. It doesn't work with a quagmire where volunteers are killed and maimed everyday. True. But they will hold out as long as possible before reinstating the draft. They may do it someday, but they really don't want to. Their ability to strike other nations at will depends on a volunteer army. If they do start the draft up, it will basically be an admission of defeat to themselves.
The Democrats on the other hand do all the same things more slowly and subtly. There are plenty of people on the right that see it and get mad when the Dems do it but not many on the left. There is a much lower chance of a reaction. That is a very appealing logic. But I have to say I agree with Trotsky when, in regards to the then-rising Nazi party,:he said
There are seven keys in the musical scale. The question as to which of these keys is "better" -- do, re, or sol -- is a nonsensical question. But the musician must know when to strike and what keys to strike. The abstract question of who is the lesser evil -- Bruening or Hitler -- is just as nonsensical. It is necessary to know which of these keys to strike. Is that clear? For the feebleminded let us cite another example. When one of my enemies sets before me small daily portions of poison and the second, on the other hand, is about to shoot straight at me, then I will first knock the revolver out of the hand of my second enemy, for this gives me an opportunity to get rid of my first enemy. But that does not at all mean that the poison is a "lesser evil" in comparison with the revolver.
The misfortune consists precisely of the fact that the leaders of the German Communist Party have placed themselves on the same ground as the Social Democracy, only with inverted prefixes: the Social Democracy votes for Bruening, recognizing in him the lesser evil. The Communists, on the other hand, who refuse to trust either Braun or Bruening in any way (and that is absolutely the right way to act), go into the streets to support Hitler's referendum, that is, the attempt of the fascists to overthrow Bruening. But by this they themselves have recognized in Hitler the lesser evil, for the victory of the referendum would not have brought the proletariat into power, but Hitler. To be sure, it is painful to have to argue over such ABC questions. It is sad, very sad indeed, when musicians like Remmele, instead of distinguishing between the keys, stamp with their boots on the keyboard.
Now say what you will about Trotsky, but he was right about this.
So they may have to reinstate the draft
I did not read your other post, but you are right - reinstating the draft would have a huge effect on public opnion. One that would not exactly work in Bush's favor. Which I why I personally do not believe Bush and his cronies will reinstate the draft. They understand the effect it would have. I think it is unlikely they will attack another country until they have pulled enough troops out of Iraq to do it with an al volunteer army.
a continuing stream of people to be laid off as their jobs are moved to China and India so they end up with declining, sometimes precipitously declining incomes. You push people from middle class affluence in to poverty they wake up really fast.
This is all a matter of scale. There are a lot of poor and middle class people who know that Bush isn't helping them economicaly, but think, "well, I don't agree with his economic policies, but he's protecting me from terrorists, and that's the most important thing". But you're right, there is only so much we are willing to take. If we get into the next Great Depression, you can bet there will be a surge of political radicalism. But there is no assurance that this will definitly happen in Bush's next term, and I'm not willing to risk the neocons getting a tighter grip on power on the chance it will.
I understand that the lesser of two evils is still evil, and that our system is totally fucked. I'm just not convinced that Bush win = revolution. It's possible, but it's also possible that we will continue our descent into an authoratarian state at an accelerated speed.
Slashdot Mirror
There sort of has been one, just (mostly) outside of Germany. If you're into the old Kraut stuff check out Stereolab and the more recent work of Boredoms. Liars also recorded their most recent album in Germany, and it definitly sounds Faust-influenced.
Geolocation by IP is not 100% accurate, but it can be implemented.
The Anglo axis of US/UK/Australia is certainly not perfect, but when weighed against China....seems to be pretty good.
Oceanea has always been at war with Eastasia.
Hit Ctrl+P
You mean enter lpr [filename], right?
Will corporate bankruptcies be affected as well?
This 'reform' legislation is paid for credit card companies and other loan institutions. They want to squeeze every last penny out of consumers. Corporations are not the target, this targets chapter 7 bankruptcies (the type most often filed by individuals).
See the open secrets page for info on who's behind the legislation.
Strange coincidence?
I would say yes.
I use Firefox at work and at home, (Windows at work and OSX at home), the link showed up the first time I loaded Google in each location.
Thanks. I feel stupid ;-)
I think the custom sections need more options.
It currently allows you to narrow your search down to one existing section. It would be nice to be able to select multiple sections to search from; for example, I created an "Apple" section, and I would like to be able to pull the results from both "sci/tech" and "business". Instead I'm stuck putting it in "All Sections", and the number one story is "Golden Apple Wows Teacher".
I would also like to be able to filter out stories with certain keywords. I created a "Music" section, and I would like to get rid of stories that contain the phrase "face the music" (most of them not being music-related). Even when the search is narrowed down to the entertainment section, I'm still seeing results about Dan Rather. And I wouldn't mind being able to get rid of the Michael Jackson stories.
I also recognize that it's validated by your taste and mine as opposed to some concrete truth. WHat if you had a perpetual Jones for pap and sentimentality?
Definitly. Didn't mean to get all elitist on you, I have nothing against sentimental pop music. However I think the major labels do not filter based on any sort of quality. What you see on MTV or hear on Top 40 radio has more to do with marketing than anything else.
I just think that you can get free content and a free filter if you are willing to search it out.
I didn't mean to give the impression that I was disagreeing with you there. I personally rely on word of mouth and online music publications/blogs (pitchforkmedia.com, fakejazz.com and cocaineblunts.com are pretty good). I will be sure to check out the podcasts you mentioned.
should be "out" not "our"
But because you don't have a record label filtering out crappy content for you, you have to spend time and effort either (1) lucking into quality content or (2) finding a free filter
You seem to be under the impression that the major labels filter our crappy content.
Below are some of the indie artists I searched for - and a link to the readily available and FREE mp3s they are giving away that MS has decided not to include in its "music search".
Sonic Youth (shitload of mp3s for free here)
The Brian Jonestown Massacre (they give away mp3s of all their songs here, though that doesn't stop MS from trying to sell them at 99 cents a pop)
Modest Mouse (a couple free mp3s here)
guys behind South Park) got hammered because they said, basically, that if you're clueless don't bother to vote.
And they followed up with an episode of South Park featuring an election between "Giant Douche" and "Turd Sandwich", complete with Puff Daddy and his Vote Or Die (bitch!) campaign.
Brilliant.
Simple solution, make everyone get Civil Union, and leave marriage upto the church.
So as a heterosexual atheist, should I be allowed to get married? The state is willing to perform the marriage for me; why not for gays?
No one is saying churches would have to recognize gay marriages. As long as the state recognizes and performs marriage, it should be available to all people.
Exactly! Guess we're on the same page here. I apologize for any implied accusation that you support the Republican party.
According to this post you just fucked yourself hard. :)
Please report to the Ministry of Love for reeducation.
Actually they ruled that the desicion to have an abortion falls under the right of privacy, not that it was it's own seperate right.
From the actual decision:
However, they go on to say:
Meaning they did not rule that there was an absolute right to an abortion.
What they did rule was that
So they don't feel that the 14th ammendment applies. I think that's morally wrong, but that's what they decided. There is a difference between this and passing a law saying "abortions are legal".
if that is not writeing a law, I don't know what is
except by that definition, a reversal of Roe v. Wade would be "legislating from the bench" as well. Before this decision, there had to be a law
If the sender makes a typo, how do I know I am NOT the intended recipient? It says so right at the top, and the sender's server clearly sent it directly to my server
:)
I'm not a lawyer though, so this is just speculation - but I'd imagine if there is nothing to indicate that you aren't the intended recipiant than you're in the clear.
If I *am* the intended recipient, then I can pass along any or all of the email I want to... INCLUDING THE DISCLAIMER
A common disclaimer will include "This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed." So you aren't supposed to send it outside your company. If that's not included then the whole disclaimer is pointless and stupid.
Since there is no legal benefit, why include the disclaimer at all? This is my big beef and made me whip out the M word.
It seems that the point is to protect themselves in case you start spreading company secrets, they can say you were told not to. Like I said, if the part about confidentiality is not included (though it usually is in my experience), then it is stupid and you are correct.
True, but Republicans also like to spend other peoples money. Mostly on "defense", much of it being wasteful or just plain pork*. I respect the Libertarian position, but the Republican position is pretty nasty in my eyes - they are happy to spend our money on killing people and pork projects but refuse to help people in need. That's just amoral in my eyes.
Not that I'm really defending the Democrats per say - when it came down to it, they chose to end social welfare as we know it but didn't cut back their own cronyism.
*references here and here and here and here and here
that stupid ass disclaimer on the email just makes the sender look like a moron.
I have to deal with big corporations at work, this kind of disclaimer is pretty standard. The sender doesn't really have a choice whether or not to include it.
True. But they will hold out as long as possible before reinstating the draft. They may do it someday, but they really don't want to. Their ability to strike other nations at will depends on a volunteer army. If they do start the draft up, it will basically be an admission of defeat to themselves.
The Democrats on the other hand do all the same things more slowly and subtly. There are plenty of people on the right that see it and get mad when the Dems do it but not many on the left. There is a much lower chance of a reaction.
That is a very appealing logic. But I have to say I agree with Trotsky when, in regards to the then-rising Nazi party,:he said
Now say what you will about Trotsky, but he was right about this.
I did not read your other post, but you are right - reinstating the draft would have a huge effect on public opnion. One that would not exactly work in Bush's favor. Which I why I personally do not believe Bush and his cronies will reinstate the draft. They understand the effect it would have. I think it is unlikely they will attack another country until they have pulled enough troops out of Iraq to do it with an al volunteer army.
a continuing stream of people to be laid off as their jobs are moved to China and India so they end up with declining, sometimes precipitously declining incomes. You push people from middle class affluence in to poverty they wake up really fast.
This is all a matter of scale. There are a lot of poor and middle class people who know that Bush isn't helping them economicaly, but think, "well, I don't agree with his economic policies, but he's protecting me from terrorists, and that's the most important thing". But you're right, there is only so much we are willing to take. If we get into the next Great Depression, you can bet there will be a surge of political radicalism. But there is no assurance that this will definitly happen in Bush's next term, and I'm not willing to risk the neocons getting a tighter grip on power on the chance it will.
I understand that the lesser of two evils is still evil, and that our system is totally fucked. I'm just not convinced that Bush win = revolution. It's possible, but it's also possible that we will continue our descent into an authoratarian state at an accelerated speed.
True. Just about everything in the "German" section you can find on torrent sites are German releases of Hollywood movies.