The subject of the article is centered on investigation and actions by local police, not the federal government. Based on your post that must mean that the US is a republic again. That's a good thing since the US just held an election for the next Congress. If the US wasn't a republic anymore then the candidates that just won would have nowhere to go in January next. Thank goodness they still do. And when they get there they will be about the People's business again. It looks like it was a good thing I was here to explain that to you since you got it wrong.
PARIS (AP) — France formalized its fascination with Jerry Lewis Thursday with a uniquely Gallic gift for his 80th birthday: a medal and induction into the Legion of Honor.
The Legion of Honour, or in full the National Order of the Legion of Honour (French: Ordre national de la Légion d'honneur)[1] is a French order established by Napoleon Bonaparte on 19 May 1802. The Order is the highest decoration in France and is divided into five degrees: Chevalier (Knight), Officier (Officer), Commandeur (Commander), Grand Officier (Grand Officer), and Grand Croix (Grand Cross).
It doesn't matter if you have 100 years of data if the study is wrong.
Here is Center For American Progress President Neera Tanden explainging how she helped write one of the biggest pieces of legislation in US history, Obamacare. It seized control over 1/6th of the economy and had many far reaching effects, not all of which have been seen yet.
I don't recall that the Center for American Progress is noted as a being an advocate for "the rich." So it looks like interest groups do have some pull after all.
It has been fucking PROVEN that the popular vote and popular issue created interest groups have practically no power to influence US policy, and yet you cling to the "VOTE!, IT'S THE WAY!" statement.
Really? I hear that the NRA, unions, ACLU, AARP, NAACP, and plenty of other organizations have influence. You'll telling me they don't? .
He didn't say it was. If you think Republic and Democracy are incompatible, you don't understand either term.
If you think a republic and direct democracy are compatible, you don't understand the term. That is an important distinction that plays into that whole "representative government" thing, not to mention secrecy debates.
What kind of dumbfuckery is this? The bank bailouts alone make a very bad liar out of you. The mandate to purchase for-profit health insurance further pulls back the curtain to reveal that you've put on your clown shoes.
Consulting the Congressional record I could find votes by Senator Mccain and Reid. Could you show me in the Congressional record the votes by Citibank and United Healthcare? Or aren't there any?
Where are Citibank and United Healthcare registered to vote?
I find it hard to believe you took a trip in your clown car for this.
If you call the US a police state then you are mistaken as to the nature of police states. It may be less free than it was, and less free than it should be, but it is still no police state.
Wait, are you telling me that there is a disparity in the influence of the patricians and the plebeians?!? And it's only been found out now?!? Quick, send runners to Caesar and the Senate! They must be informed at once! All of Rome and its traditions are in peril!
The US is an oligarchy in rhetoric only, in reality it is a republic in which corporations can't vote but citizen can. Election still determine the composition of Congress and it is Congress that makes the laws, not corporations, even if corporations can and do influence the contents of various laws. The recently stated intent of the President to ignore the power of Congress is a troubling development, but one which I expect many on Slashdot will agree with.
You seem to hold some mistaken ideas about what "those who stand with liberty and freedom" actually do in some cases. The people that wrote that text you quote employed spies and kept some matters secret, both before and after the Revolution.
Resolved, That every member of this Congress considers himself under the ties of virtue, honour, and love of his country, not to divulge, directly or indirectly, any matter or thing agitated or debated in Congress, before the same shall have been determined, without leave of the Congress; nor any matter or thing determined in Congress, which a majority of the Congress shall order to be kept secret. And that if any member shall violate this agreement, he shall be expelled this Congress, and deemed an enemy to the liberties of America, and liable to be treated as such; and that every member signify his consent to this agreement by signing the same.
Maybe you should read that again just so it sinks in - not keeping certain secrets could make you an enemy of the liberties of America in the eyes of the Founding Fathers.
Do you understand the meaning of representative government? The consent is to be governed, not to every single individual action of government.
The US is a Republic, not a direct democracy. The lawmakers are representatives that do some things behind closed doors out of practical necessity. Abraham Lincoln had people spying on the Confederacy, and that wasn't done in the open view of the public either. There is always going to be a tension between the need to keep the public informed and the need to keep some things secret. Trying to resolve that tension by asserting there must be no secrets in government is a losing game and it goes against practically all experience and wisdom.* One may reasonably argue about where the boundaries should be, not not about the practical necessity of the government keeping some things secret.
Since you're getting into something you by your own admission lack domain experience in, unless you've won the Powerball and have a lot more money than brains, anyone you interview will realize that you're going nowhere and hence even the short-term prospects are, at best, poor.
At least with outsourcing, you can BS them as much as they BS you so they won't walk out the door shaking their head.
So in short you didn't really have any useful advice, just spite, that for some reason some people think is "insightful."
When asked for advice you'll get the best recommendation scientists have at the time it's given. Hopefully it isn't actually completely wrong, backwards, missing a key piece of the puzzle, or just plain lethal. It will always be subject to revision, and in 50 years you might get the exact opposite advice. And that is before we get to misunderstandings by the public, or the results of dumbing down the recommendations to make them more easily understood but not completely correct any more.
Eggs? Coffee? Butter v margarine? Vitamin supplements?....
Having said that, we need to keep at it with the best tools science has since it is the best way forward and has been proven many times despite being wrong at times.
If any of these bozos did twenty minutes of research, they might have found Ardin's blog - "my feminist reflections and comments on animal rights, Swedish politics and Cuba from a political scientist, Christian left and long distance runner" - and read her post, with the help of a Scandinavian comrade or Google Translate, "Våldtäkt en del av mäns makt" - rape [is] a part of men's power. Or they would have seen this article from Ardin's days at Uppsala University, where she, in her role as some sort of equality watchdog, denounced the tradition of singing ribald student songs, which included "references to genitalia and serious sexual content," as "offensive and stereotypical." She is, in other words, rather sensitive on gender issues. Or this blog post on how one can exact "legal revenge" on men who have been "unfaithful." According to The Guardian, sources close to the investigation claim that she filed a complaint because Assange didn't wear a condom during sex. So the boring truth is that Assange didn't come up against a CIA conspiracy, but the rather broad Swedish conception of what constitutes a sexual crime.
It's fine that you agree, but what about everybody else? If I stop posting then much of what's left on varous topics will be bad arguments and non-factual "facts." Nobody should want that, it doesn't help anybody. I'll keep posting to benefit everybody else even if you agree with me.
I still post under the same user name. You replied to someone else under the foolish assumption that nobody else could hold views that might be considered similar to my own in some fashion despite the fact that tens of millions of Americans hold similar views.
I find your little hateful rants a source of amusement, a demonstration of your impotent rage, and proof of your hatred of pluralism and democratic principles. Of course I do leave open the possibility that you are simply unmedicated.
Slashdot Mirror
Excellent question. I see you're coming along nicely.
The subject of the article is centered on investigation and actions by local police, not the federal government. Based on your post that must mean that the US is a republic again. That's a good thing since the US just held an election for the next Congress. If the US wasn't a republic anymore then the candidates that just won would have nowhere to go in January next. Thank goodness they still do. And when they get there they will be about the People's business again. It looks like it was a good thing I was here to explain that to you since you got it wrong.
"Denial" may be "comforting," but too many engage in fantasy when considering these matters.
Which are these so called "free countries acting like police states" that you claim is a reality? How is it acted out?
An "idiot," certainly, but "idiot American"? I doubt that.
But I suppose turnabout is fair play.
A Shot In The Dark Funnies
Hilarious _ The Return of the Pink Panther
My guess is that they are trying to generate more web traffic using that one weird trick.
It's not an urban legend. France has a special appreciation for the comedic genius of Msr Jerry Lewis.
Jerry Lewis gets Legion of Honor medal
PARIS (AP) — France formalized its fascination with Jerry Lewis Thursday with a uniquely Gallic gift for his 80th birthday: a medal and induction into the Legion of Honor.
Legion of Honour
The Legion of Honour, or in full the National Order of the Legion of Honour (French: Ordre national de la Légion d'honneur)[1] is a French order established by Napoleon Bonaparte on 19 May 1802. The Order is the highest decoration in France and is divided into five degrees: Chevalier (Knight), Officier (Officer), Commandeur (Commander), Grand Officier (Grand Officer), and Grand Croix (Grand Cross).
It doesn't matter if you have 100 years of data if the study is wrong.
Here is Center For American Progress President Neera Tanden explainging how she helped write one of the biggest pieces of legislation in US history, Obamacare. It seized control over 1/6th of the economy and had many far reaching effects, not all of which have been seen yet.
I don't recall that the Center for American Progress is noted as a being an advocate for "the rich." So it looks like interest groups do have some pull after all.
It has been fucking PROVEN that the popular vote and popular issue created interest groups have practically no power to influence US policy, and yet you cling to the "VOTE!, IT'S THE WAY!" statement.
Really? I hear that the NRA, unions, ACLU, AARP, NAACP, and plenty of other organizations have influence. You'll telling me they don't? .
And how do you propose to have this "accountability" if the actions are kept secret? You seem to be contradicting yourself.
WW I, WW II, the Viet Nam war, and others all had massive amounts of secrecy associated with them. Were elections suspended? No.
He didn't say it was. If you think Republic and Democracy are incompatible, you don't understand either term.
If you think a republic and direct democracy are compatible, you don't understand the term. That is an important distinction that plays into that whole "representative government" thing, not to mention secrecy debates.
What kind of dumbfuckery is this? The bank bailouts alone make a very bad liar out of you. The mandate to purchase for-profit health insurance further pulls back the curtain to reveal that you've put on your clown shoes.
Consulting the Congressional record I could find votes by Senator Mccain and Reid. Could you show me in the Congressional record the votes by Citibank and United Healthcare? Or aren't there any?
Where are Citibank and United Healthcare registered to vote?
I find it hard to believe you took a trip in your clown car for this.
This was done this was done ... You are correct to a point..
So you basically agree with me. Thanks.
BTW - Starting off your reply with "dumbass" detracted from your argument.
You skipped over something.
... it is Congress that makes the laws, not corporations, even if corporations can and do influence the contents of various laws.
Didn't suit your view?
If you call the US a police state then you are mistaken as to the nature of police states. It may be less free than it was, and less free than it should be, but it is still no police state.
Wait, are you telling me that there is a disparity in the influence of the patricians and the plebeians?!? And it's only been found out now?!? Quick, send runners to Caesar and the Senate! They must be informed at once! All of Rome and its traditions are in peril!
Everything old is new again.
The US is an oligarchy in rhetoric only, in reality it is a republic in which corporations can't vote but citizen can. Election still determine the composition of Congress and it is Congress that makes the laws, not corporations, even if corporations can and do influence the contents of various laws. The recently stated intent of the President to ignore the power of Congress is a troubling development, but one which I expect many on Slashdot will agree with.
I know you're not really detail oriented, but your overlooking the first sentence of my post is a bit egregious even for you.
The US is a Republic .....
You seem to hold some mistaken ideas about what "those who stand with liberty and freedom" actually do in some cases. The people that wrote that text you quote employed spies and kept some matters secret, both before and after the Revolution.
Resolution of Secrecy Adopted by the Continental Congress, November 9, 1775
Resolved, That every member of this Congress considers himself under the ties of virtue, honour, and love of his country, not to divulge, directly or indirectly, any matter or thing agitated or debated in Congress, before the same shall have been determined, without leave of the Congress; nor any matter or thing determined in Congress, which a majority of the Congress shall order to be kept secret. And that if any member shall violate this agreement, he shall be expelled this Congress, and deemed an enemy to the liberties of America, and liable to be treated as such; and that every member signify his consent to this agreement by signing the same.
Maybe you should read that again just so it sinks in - not keeping certain secrets could make you an enemy of the liberties of America in the eyes of the Founding Fathers.
Do you understand the meaning of representative government? The consent is to be governed, not to every single individual action of government.
The US is a Republic, not a direct democracy. The lawmakers are representatives that do some things behind closed doors out of practical necessity. Abraham Lincoln had people spying on the Confederacy, and that wasn't done in the open view of the public either. There is always going to be a tension between the need to keep the public informed and the need to keep some things secret. Trying to resolve that tension by asserting there must be no secrets in government is a losing game and it goes against practically all experience and wisdom.* One may reasonably argue about where the boundaries should be, not not about the practical necessity of the government keeping some things secret.
*Hence the popularity among some on Slashdot.
Since you're getting into something you by your own admission lack domain experience in, unless you've won the Powerball and have a lot more money than brains, anyone you interview will realize that you're going nowhere and hence even the short-term prospects are, at best, poor.
At least with outsourcing, you can BS them as much as they BS you so they won't walk out the door shaking their head.
So in short you didn't really have any useful advice, just spite, that for some reason some people think is "insightful."
Reminds me of this old article:
Bringing Up A Surplus 68000 Board - Micro Cornucopia, p. 28
I miss that magazine and the old Byte.
Why even bother with hardware. Why not just emulate it?
Because you won't develop hardware skills? You won't have the satisfaction of building your own?
When asked for advice you'll get the best recommendation scientists have at the time it's given. Hopefully it isn't actually completely wrong, backwards, missing a key piece of the puzzle, or just plain lethal. It will always be subject to revision, and in 50 years you might get the exact opposite advice. And that is before we get to misunderstandings by the public, or the results of dumbing down the recommendations to make them more easily understood but not completely correct any more.
Eggs? Coffee? Butter v margarine? Vitamin supplements? ....
Having said that, we need to keep at it with the best tools science has since it is the best way forward and has been proven many times despite being wrong at times.
Now about "global warming" ....
It doesn't matter how thin you slice that, it is still baloney.
The boring truth about those Julian Assange smears
If any of these bozos did twenty minutes of research, they might have found Ardin's blog - "my feminist reflections and comments on animal rights, Swedish politics and Cuba from a political scientist, Christian left and long distance runner" - and read her post, with the help of a Scandinavian comrade or Google Translate, "Våldtäkt en del av mäns makt" - rape [is] a part of men's power. Or they would have seen this article from Ardin's days at Uppsala University, where she, in her role as some sort of equality watchdog, denounced the tradition of singing ribald student songs, which included "references to genitalia and serious sexual content," as "offensive and stereotypical." She is, in other words, rather sensitive on gender issues. Or this blog post on how one can exact "legal revenge" on men who have been "unfaithful." According to The Guardian, sources close to the investigation claim that she filed a complaint because Assange didn't wear a condom during sex. So the boring truth is that Assange didn't come up against a CIA conspiracy, but the rather broad Swedish conception of what constitutes a sexual crime.
It's fine that you agree, but what about everybody else? If I stop posting then much of what's left on varous topics will be bad arguments and non-factual "facts." Nobody should want that, it doesn't help anybody. I'll keep posting to benefit everybody else even if you agree with me.
I still post under the same user name. You replied to someone else under the foolish assumption that nobody else could hold views that might be considered similar to my own in some fashion despite the fact that tens of millions of Americans hold similar views.
I find your little hateful rants a source of amusement, a demonstration of your impotent rage, and proof of your hatred of pluralism and democratic principles. Of course I do leave open the possibility that you are simply unmedicated.