Apparently your universe doesn't have "conservation", nor "increasing efficiency".
"Conservation" and "increasing efficiency" change the "when", not the "if". Green sources might (if we make them a high priority starting about NOW), mean that we don't have to go with fission plants. Of course, the one dream tech that will save us from an Amish future is fusion.
Liberals think that religious persons should not have the right to free speech. They seem to think that the concept of "Separation of Church and State" means that church members aren't allowed to have or speak political opinion.
This is blatantly untrue. Most (nearly all) liberals think that religious people have the right to free speech. Every dunderheaded political thing that Pat Robertson has said on television is protected speech. Liberals would oppose the government trying to stop Pat Robertson from saying political things.
However, at the end of the day, a 'church' is only a tax-exempt organization if it constrains itself to conducting religious affairs. If an organization chooses to become either political or commercial, then it risks losing the special tax-exemption that exists for religious organizations.
If liberals weren't interested in fostering religion, they would point out that any attempt by the government to even decide which organizations are churches, is a violation of the separation of church and state. They would get rid of the tax-exempt status altogether, which would remove the government interference that bothers you so.
EACH AND EVERY national election cycle we get video of one liberal leader after another visiting CHURCHES and TELLING PEOPLE HOW TO VOTE.
I've seen the liberal politicians going to the churches, but I don't recall a single instance of them saying "Vote for me" or "Vote Democrat" while in a church. Their church appearances don't have to have any text at all; they are being seen in the church, and they are pressing the flesh. Those are the core purposes of their visits. The text is usually a few Bible verses about "the least among you", and related ramblings. The purpose of their visit is political (their choice of toilet paper is political), but they tailor their message to keep to the windy side of the law.
I'm sure that there have been slips, but nothing so egregious as the GOP-produced multimedia presentations shown in evangelical mega-churches. And the Catholic bishop who told people that voting for Kerry was a sin deserves a nice visit from the IRS.
I don't think this is a good analogy, because the artists have willingly signed a contract with a record label and assigned some of their rights to the record label.
A better analogy might be a dairy farm. Once the artist has become part of a certain farmer's herd, she gets branded. The farmer milks her as often as possible (profitable). The farmer, not the cow, owns the milk. Sometimes the farmer looks at the market and decides to pour the artists perfectly good milk down the sewer. The cow has a few (very few) protections against cruelty, but the farmer has the whip hand.
You can try being a free-range cow, but it's a hard scrabble life of break-even shows in scuzzy venues. Alfalfa is sweeter than prarie grass, though in a horrible mix-tape analogy, sometimes the farmers feed you 'parts' of earlier artists and you go mad.
Who wants to stop churches from speaking out against lifestyles they find destructive? Who wants to limit the freedom of pastors? Of street preachers ?
Liberals don't want to limit the freedom of speech of pastors, nor prevent churches from making political statements. But if they choose to play politics, then they lose their tax-exempt status. Likewise, McDonald's can't wrap their burgers in bible-tracts and exempt themselves from property taxes, sales taxes and income taxes. To be tax-exempt the churches must confine themselves to religion, and not tell parishoners how to vote.
On the coasts, it's largely a non-issue from what I understand, but here in the midwest people look at you like you're some kind of horrible freak.
It's not the hair color. Someone who dyes their hair pink can be categorized as free, expressive, non-conformant, etc. But for such a person to choose to live in the midwest: freak.
If there were a total artist control type of rights management this idiot could retrieve (forever extinghuish the existence) the now-regrettable work posted to the Internet.
Unfortunately for DRM to really work, and based on industry attempts so far, the analogy of being able to 'revoke' a post from a webhost falls short. Rather, DRM requires that the content creator has a back-door into your desktop computer that will let them erase the text of their comment that you have cut-and-pasted and any screenshots of their post that you might have made.
I don't object to an artist being able to remove a song from their own download service. But their right to control file access stops at the edge of my machine.
A good economy rewards two things. Hard work, and risk.
Our economy offers high rewards to being born of wealthy parents. Ergo, we must not have a good economy. Inherited wealth is one of the causes of the large wealth inequality; maybe that should be the first target of any 'fixes'.
Don't say "they spend on luxuries that trickle down", because the poor and middle spend much more in the economy on consumer goods.
You know, I love the idea of "trickle down" economics. But there's one little twist that would make it even better. Of every dollar that a poor person gets, 90 cents ends-up in the pockets of a rich person (Wal-Mart executive, McDonalds executive, Nike executive,...) within a few days. So, if you want to stimulate the trickle down economy, don't give tax cuts to the rich; give cash to the poor. That cash will shoot to the top, and then trickle down. Who could argue with this plan?
I like the effect of Sununu's proposed legislation on the broadcast flag, but the intent of the legislation (worshipping 'market forces', not promoting fair use), and the wider effects are terrible. The FCC was instrumental in standardizing, for instance, ATSC (the 'new' digital television standard). If there were no coercive body to create and enforce such a standard, how much do you want to bet that we would have a broadcast version of the HD-DVD/BlueRay wars? Do you really want to have to buy one TV to watch CBS and ABC, and a different TV to watch NBC and Fox?
Corporations are terrible at cooperating, and they don't give a rat's ass about the consumers' persepective. If they think that they can make more money by selling incompatible devices or services, then they will. Only a superceding, non-business, body can force standardization.
I don't expect that the FCC will make the best decisions all of the time. If they had been in the position to choose HD-DVD vs BlueRay, they might have made the 'wrong' choice (whichever one that happens to be). But either choice is better than what we have now, which is: both. By forcing one standard, even a suboptimal one, they also create profitable network effects and reduce expensive waste for corporations.
No, this MPAA-sponsored file sharing isn't about scaring people or about lawsuits. They are just increasing the amount of filesharing going on, so that they can up their estimate of lost annual revenues to $60 billion.
I wouldn't mind taking a peak at COBOL syntax (just another syntax), but I don't want to get steeped in the COBOL culture. How to use language features to isolate transactions, what are the types and advantages of batch job approaches. That would take a long time to learn, and could send a career in a COBOL direction.
Every person I've met with writing talent throws lots of stuff away. They do it without a second thought, and the next attempt is almost always better. Why should writing software be any different?
Because that chunk of prose that your friend threw away didn't cost $40M to create. You might be correct that it will cost more to fix the $40M codebase than it would to start from scratch, but the managers who have to make that decision have a really hard time telling their managers that the old codebase has not only no value, but negative value. It's a tough sell, and then the uber-managers might ask themselves if they want to start a new, very expensive, project to create a new codebase that might also have negative value.
Because your little Department of Attack mindless left crybaby nonsense is who brought major advances in all of those areas.
And why was it the DoD that researched those advances? Is it because lefty crybabies didn't want those advances researched, while jingoist fascists did? No. Lefty crybabies support spending tax dollars for beneficial research. But the only way to get a right-wing nutcase to agree to let the government spend tax dollars on research is by promising to kill lots and lots of 'bad people'.
If you care so little about what you write, that you would use a peripheral that mangles your words, why don't you just throw all of your keyboards into the ocean and shout at the screen?
Does your inability to use the correct form of to/two/too stem from being an idiot, or does it just violate your cultural values to stoop to using the correct word?
Slashdot Mirror
"Conservation" and "increasing efficiency" change the "when", not the "if". Green sources might (if we make them a high priority starting about NOW), mean that we don't have to go with fission plants. Of course, the one dream tech that will save us from an Amish future is fusion.
This is blatantly untrue. Most (nearly all) liberals think that religious people have the right to free speech. Every dunderheaded political thing that Pat Robertson has said on television is protected speech. Liberals would oppose the government trying to stop Pat Robertson from saying political things.
However, at the end of the day, a 'church' is only a tax-exempt organization if it constrains itself to conducting religious affairs. If an organization chooses to become either political or commercial, then it risks losing the special tax-exemption that exists for religious organizations.
If liberals weren't interested in fostering religion, they would point out that any attempt by the government to even decide which organizations are churches, is a violation of the separation of church and state. They would get rid of the tax-exempt status altogether, which would remove the government interference that bothers you so.
I've seen the liberal politicians going to the churches, but I don't recall a single instance of them saying "Vote for me" or "Vote Democrat" while in a church. Their church appearances don't have to have any text at all; they are being seen in the church, and they are pressing the flesh. Those are the core purposes of their visits. The text is usually a few Bible verses about "the least among you", and related ramblings. The purpose of their visit is political (their choice of toilet paper is political), but they tailor their message to keep to the windy side of the law.
I'm sure that there have been slips, but nothing so egregious as the GOP-produced multimedia presentations shown in evangelical mega-churches. And the Catholic bishop who told people that voting for Kerry was a sin deserves a nice visit from the IRS.
A better analogy might be a dairy farm. Once the artist has become part of a certain farmer's herd, she gets branded. The farmer milks her as often as possible (profitable). The farmer, not the cow, owns the milk. Sometimes the farmer looks at the market and decides to pour the artists perfectly good milk down the sewer. The cow has a few (very few) protections against cruelty, but the farmer has the whip hand.
You can try being a free-range cow, but it's a hard scrabble life of break-even shows in scuzzy venues. Alfalfa is sweeter than prarie grass, though in a horrible mix-tape analogy, sometimes the farmers feed you 'parts' of earlier artists and you go mad.
Close, it's $25,000 per quarter, which comes-out to $100,000 per year. Even cheap astroturfing would be allowed.
Liberals don't want to limit the freedom of speech of pastors, nor prevent churches from making political statements. But if they choose to play politics, then they lose their tax-exempt status. Likewise, McDonald's can't wrap their burgers in bible-tracts and exempt themselves from property taxes, sales taxes and income taxes. To be tax-exempt the churches must confine themselves to religion, and not tell parishoners how to vote.
There was supposed to be an Alderan-shattering kaboom. Where's my Alderan-shattering kaboom?
Maybe we can convince them to trade their spots for prison stripes.
Is that a peripheral for Decide Decide Revolution?
It's not the hair color. Someone who dyes their hair pink can be categorized as free, expressive, non-conformant, etc. But for such a person to choose to live in the midwest: freak.
A compiler is the ultimate spelling and grammar Nazi.
Unfortunately for DRM to really work, and based on industry attempts so far, the analogy of being able to 'revoke' a post from a webhost falls short. Rather, DRM requires that the content creator has a back-door into your desktop computer that will let them erase the text of their comment that you have cut-and-pasted and any screenshots of their post that you might have made.
I don't object to an artist being able to remove a song from their own download service. But their right to control file access stops at the edge of my machine.
Our economy offers high rewards to being born of wealthy parents. Ergo, we must not have a good economy. Inherited wealth is one of the causes of the large wealth inequality; maybe that should be the first target of any 'fixes'.
You know, I love the idea of "trickle down" economics. But there's one little twist that would make it even better. Of every dollar that a poor person gets, 90 cents ends-up in the pockets of a rich person (Wal-Mart executive, McDonalds executive, Nike executive, ...) within a few days. So, if you want to stimulate the trickle down economy, don't give tax cuts to the rich; give cash to the poor. That cash will shoot to the top, and then trickle down. Who could argue with this plan?
Corporations are terrible at cooperating, and they don't give a rat's ass about the consumers' persepective. If they think that they can make more money by selling incompatible devices or services, then they will. Only a superceding, non-business, body can force standardization.
I don't expect that the FCC will make the best decisions all of the time. If they had been in the position to choose HD-DVD vs BlueRay, they might have made the 'wrong' choice (whichever one that happens to be). But either choice is better than what we have now, which is: both. By forcing one standard, even a suboptimal one, they also create profitable network effects and reduce expensive waste for corporations.
No, this MPAA-sponsored file sharing isn't about scaring people or about lawsuits. They are just increasing the amount of filesharing going on, so that they can up their estimate of lost annual revenues to $60 billion.
For a lot of 16 and 17 year olds, not using condoms prevented their college fees.
Neither Q4 nor HL2 can hold a candle to Duke Nukem Forever. It is simply, hands-down, the most amazing game that you are never going to see.
Pi is 10.0 in base .31415926
I wouldn't mind taking a peak at COBOL syntax (just another syntax), but I don't want to get steeped in the COBOL culture. How to use language features to isolate transactions, what are the types and advantages of batch job approaches. That would take a long time to learn, and could send a career in a COBOL direction.
Because that chunk of prose that your friend threw away didn't cost $40M to create. You might be correct that it will cost more to fix the $40M codebase than it would to start from scratch, but the managers who have to make that decision have a really hard time telling their managers that the old codebase has not only no value, but negative value. It's a tough sell, and then the uber-managers might ask themselves if they want to start a new, very expensive, project to create a new codebase that might also have negative value.
And pseudoscience is pseudoscience. Guess which tool "religious groups" tend to use?
And why was it the DoD that researched those advances? Is it because lefty crybabies didn't want those advances researched, while jingoist fascists did? No. Lefty crybabies support spending tax dollars for beneficial research. But the only way to get a right-wing nutcase to agree to let the government spend tax dollars on research is by promising to kill lots and lots of 'bad people'.
If you care so little about what you write, that you would use a peripheral that mangles your words, why don't you just throw all of your keyboards into the ocean and shout at the screen?
Does your inability to use the correct form of to/two/too stem from being an idiot, or does it just violate your cultural values to stoop to using the correct word?