And that's ultimately the issue, isn't it. Paul's no more a Constitutional purist than a Biblical literalist is a Biblical purist. He has interpreted the Constitution in such a way that it backs up his Libertarianism. The only other historical group I can think of that might have viewed Paul's particular Constitutional exegesis approvingly were the guys that went on to form the Confederate States of America. Curiously, he seems to share their view of Lincoln as well.
In the off chance that he did get the Republican nomination (and it's an off chance, anyone who thinks Paul has a serious chance of even getting that far is in la-la land), he'd been run over by Obama. Let Paul stand up and tell the American electorate how he's going to dismantle everything Americans have come to expect from the Federal government since FDR (hell, since bloody Lincoln), and Obama will probably go on to have one of the biggest second term wins in US history.
Indeed. Ron Paul's supporters on/. seem to get a considerable number of mod points, and use them not to mod down ill behavior, but anyone who dares speak against Paul or his hard Libertarianism. If they abuse mod points to such a degree, imagine what would happen if you gave them real power.
The problem is that for every truth he speaks, he also speaks a dozen absurdities. He's ignorant of history, economics and governance. He'd make the worst kind of leader; the kind that blindly pushes through on purely ideological grounds. Beware the fanatic.
The only explanation I can think of is that the investors were morons. But hey, lots of people but SCO stock too, believing they'd be making big bucks from licensing fees for every guy downloading a Linux distro.
It's all conspiracy bullshit. Their engineers had to know it was going to cause serious interference, and had to know that neither the FCC specifically, nor the US Government in general would ever let anyone trash GPS. It was an idiotic idea from the get-go, and now the company goes down the crapper for it.
Your argument is circular and assumes its on conclusion. You may be right that central planning cannot ever work, but by making what amounts to a religious argument (that mankind is inherently free market, something that at least the hunter gatherer level is obviously false).
There are two constants to language: 1. languages evolve and take on new words and idioms and 2. some pedantic asshole is always there shouting "get off my lawn!"
That depends on the procedure. Radioactive iodine used in thyroid conditions are often at levels sufficiently high that you are supposed to stay away from children.
Gaining a direct benefit from a ruling is corruption. A judge in such a situation is supposed to recuse himself. This isn't a case of simple bias, but rather the case that the judge has a financial interest in the outcome of this case.
Even if I bought that line, the fact remains that in this case, if the allegations are true, the judge is a direct beneficiary of his own judgements. That is indeed textbook corruption.
Hitler only came to power because that fool von Papen thought he could control Hitler and in no small part because Bismarck was by that point almost completely senile. It's all documented, Hitler gained power by appearing to be a compliant candidate for Chancellor.
Germany had pretty much fully recovered by the late 1920s. It wasn't the harsh repayments of Versailles that lead to the rise of the Nazis, it was the harsh economic conditions of the early 1930s.
Oh wait, they do. It's because you idiots don't call the cops the second you figure out an anarchist is in your ranks, but just stand around like fucking morons while he and his buddies basically evaporate public sympathy for your cause.
Perhaps some of you should be deputized and forced to police your own protests.
So you want to make science even slower and less likely to produce results by turning it into a bureaucratic nightmare? It's a ludicrous idea that indicates you don't have the foggiest idea how science works. I mean, a first tier of data gatherers... What are you going to do, give them lobotomies to protect them from making any kind of intuitive leap that a series of samples indicate some new property? How would you fit this to a whole host of sciences, like archaeology, where expertise in the field in general is absolutely essential to extraction, preservation and research?
It's an idiotic idea. Science can be a messy business, but at the end of the day the theory stands or falls on the evidence. That's the final objective, however you manage to get there. Evolution wasn't formulated by one guy drawing sparrows, another guying cataloging the drawings and a third guy browsing through the library. It was all done by one guy.
I have no idea what problem you think you would solve. It's not as if the vast majority of people could interpret raw data anyways, and any researcher who won't release methods and/or raw data is pretty much immediately suspect from the get-go.
I guess if your purpose it make science stop dead in the water, it's a great idea. That way any theory of an inconvenient nature might take a hundred years to come to fruition, if at all.
You didn't mention anybody. You asserted some special knowledge because you write a "science website", and then went on to make unevidenced accusations. You're precisely the problem, the layman who thinks he's the smartest boy on the block who makes grandiose claims about a huge level of incompetence-cum-fraud.
The worst thing to ever happen to science was the science journalist.
Let's not put to sacred a mantle on masked protesters. History shows that, by and large, it's the anarchists who put the masks on. The reason you put a mask on isn't to make a point, it's to evade later arrest after you lit a Starbucks on fire.
It didn't work that well. It's not like Harper has a commanding majority, the Tories squeaked past, and now that it looks like the Liberals are dead men walking and centrist and left-leaning voters have decided to throw their weight behind the NDP, the Tories are going to have a lot tougher time. It's still early days, but at some point Harper is going to have to put the lid back on the social conservatives and the extreme law and order types. He's letting them loose right now because it's still early days, but after he crosses the halfway mark, you're going to see these guys thrown back in their cage, because it's precisely these kinds of loudmouthed hard right types that could lose the majority for him, and he certainly didn't put all this work into reuniting the right just to have some pro-life blowhards delivering votes into the NDP's hands.
The Government sits on top of a sometimes restless coalition. Harper has to throw bones to the social conservatives. That's what the hub-bub about the renewed abortion debate is. But do you think, with the NDP in a statistical dead heat with the Tories, that there's any way Harper is going to allow this sort of debate to go too far? He's looking at a left-wing party starting to gain popularity even in some traditional Tory ridings. No, he'll let them make some noise, and then will snuff it out as quietly as he can.
Slashdot Mirror
And that's ultimately the issue, isn't it. Paul's no more a Constitutional purist than a Biblical literalist is a Biblical purist. He has interpreted the Constitution in such a way that it backs up his Libertarianism. The only other historical group I can think of that might have viewed Paul's particular Constitutional exegesis approvingly were the guys that went on to form the Confederate States of America. Curiously, he seems to share their view of Lincoln as well.
In the off chance that he did get the Republican nomination (and it's an off chance, anyone who thinks Paul has a serious chance of even getting that far is in la-la land), he'd been run over by Obama. Let Paul stand up and tell the American electorate how he's going to dismantle everything Americans have come to expect from the Federal government since FDR (hell, since bloody Lincoln), and Obama will probably go on to have one of the biggest second term wins in US history.
Indeed. Ron Paul's supporters on /. seem to get a considerable number of mod points, and use them not to mod down ill behavior, but anyone who dares speak against Paul or his hard Libertarianism. If they abuse mod points to such a degree, imagine what would happen if you gave them real power.
The problem is that for every truth he speaks, he also speaks a dozen absurdities. He's ignorant of history, economics and governance. He'd make the worst kind of leader; the kind that blindly pushes through on purely ideological grounds. Beware the fanatic.
The only explanation I can think of is that the investors were morons. But hey, lots of people but SCO stock too, believing they'd be making big bucks from licensing fees for every guy downloading a Linux distro.
It's all conspiracy bullshit. Their engineers had to know it was going to cause serious interference, and had to know that neither the FCC specifically, nor the US Government in general would ever let anyone trash GPS. It was an idiotic idea from the get-go, and now the company goes down the crapper for it.
Your argument is circular and assumes its on conclusion. You may be right that central planning cannot ever work, but by making what amounts to a religious argument (that mankind is inherently free market, something that at least the hunter gatherer level is obviously false).
There are two constants to language: 1. languages evolve and take on new words and idioms and 2. some pedantic asshole is always there shouting "get off my lawn!"
They're in Russia. What do they care about anti-hacking laws?
Sounds more to me like Microsoft and the media companies are being scammed.
That depends on the procedure. Radioactive iodine used in thyroid conditions are often at levels sufficiently high that you are supposed to stay away from children.
There are procedures like radioactive iodine for thyroid patients where you are supposed to be kept away from small children.
How did you get +2 making posts of this kind?
In other words big ass journals and lots of buffering. Sounds like a Microsoft solution; just give us more RAM and drive space.
Gaining a direct benefit from a ruling is corruption. A judge in such a situation is supposed to recuse himself. This isn't a case of simple bias, but rather the case that the judge has a financial interest in the outcome of this case.
Even if I bought that line, the fact remains that in this case, if the allegations are true, the judge is a direct beneficiary of his own judgements. That is indeed textbook corruption.
Hitler only came to power because that fool von Papen thought he could control Hitler and in no small part because Bismarck was by that point almost completely senile. It's all documented, Hitler gained power by appearing to be a compliant candidate for Chancellor.
It's all part of his strange sexual perversion. I suggest you look away before he really gets going. Think John Travolta with a keyboard here.
Germany had pretty much fully recovered by the late 1920s. It wasn't the harsh repayments of Versailles that lead to the rise of the Nazis, it was the harsh economic conditions of the early 1930s.
Because, of course, protests never get ugly.
Oh wait, they do. It's because you idiots don't call the cops the second you figure out an anarchist is in your ranks, but just stand around like fucking morons while he and his buddies basically evaporate public sympathy for your cause.
Perhaps some of you should be deputized and forced to police your own protests.
So you want to make science even slower and less likely to produce results by turning it into a bureaucratic nightmare? It's a ludicrous idea that indicates you don't have the foggiest idea how science works. I mean, a first tier of data gatherers... What are you going to do, give them lobotomies to protect them from making any kind of intuitive leap that a series of samples indicate some new property? How would you fit this to a whole host of sciences, like archaeology, where expertise in the field in general is absolutely essential to extraction, preservation and research?
It's an idiotic idea. Science can be a messy business, but at the end of the day the theory stands or falls on the evidence. That's the final objective, however you manage to get there. Evolution wasn't formulated by one guy drawing sparrows, another guying cataloging the drawings and a third guy browsing through the library. It was all done by one guy.
I have no idea what problem you think you would solve. It's not as if the vast majority of people could interpret raw data anyways, and any researcher who won't release methods and/or raw data is pretty much immediately suspect from the get-go.
I guess if your purpose it make science stop dead in the water, it's a great idea. That way any theory of an inconvenient nature might take a hundred years to come to fruition, if at all.
You didn't mention anybody. You asserted some special knowledge because you write a "science website", and then went on to make unevidenced accusations. You're precisely the problem, the layman who thinks he's the smartest boy on the block who makes grandiose claims about a huge level of incompetence-cum-fraud.
The worst thing to ever happen to science was the science journalist.
Let's not put to sacred a mantle on masked protesters. History shows that, by and large, it's the anarchists who put the masks on. The reason you put a mask on isn't to make a point, it's to evade later arrest after you lit a Starbucks on fire.
It didn't work that well. It's not like Harper has a commanding majority, the Tories squeaked past, and now that it looks like the Liberals are dead men walking and centrist and left-leaning voters have decided to throw their weight behind the NDP, the Tories are going to have a lot tougher time. It's still early days, but at some point Harper is going to have to put the lid back on the social conservatives and the extreme law and order types. He's letting them loose right now because it's still early days, but after he crosses the halfway mark, you're going to see these guys thrown back in their cage, because it's precisely these kinds of loudmouthed hard right types that could lose the majority for him, and he certainly didn't put all this work into reuniting the right just to have some pro-life blowhards delivering votes into the NDP's hands.
The Government sits on top of a sometimes restless coalition. Harper has to throw bones to the social conservatives. That's what the hub-bub about the renewed abortion debate is. But do you think, with the NDP in a statistical dead heat with the Tories, that there's any way Harper is going to allow this sort of debate to go too far? He's looking at a left-wing party starting to gain popularity even in some traditional Tory ridings. No, he'll let them make some noise, and then will snuff it out as quietly as he can.