Personally I find that this is probably a distasteful ruling -- voting is supposed to be a matter of conscience in one's own locality -- not somewhere across party lines where presumably money could also change hands to encourage the vote swap -- i.e. who says a person can't claim to vote swap with multiple people, or even use a spam list to fake the trades -- thus essentially buying votes -- which IS illegal.
If I ever got free reign of redesigning the constitution, I would do away with the current house of representatives and have a proportional vote based on nationwide percentage.
Maybe have 500 reps total and if you do the math that would be 300,000,000 US citizens divided by 500 so you would get a seat if you got 600,000 votes. If you get more than than that is absorbed and all you get is a seat for that person (this is not by party). Then if say there is less than 500 reps then the runner ups less than 600,000 can get seats ranking by total number of votes from all states.
That way we can just do away with this whole district issue which is being cheated and make put in people in the federal government that more people want.
On the other hand, if I had free reign, I would make the senate go back to the old way of having the state governments appointment in that if you don't like your senator you need to vote out your state representative. Which would dilute the effect of lobbying.
Of course... This is just me and my fantasies and I doubt anyone would ever implement them.
Do you realize that murder and manslaughter and aggravated assault are different? Do you realize that robbery and theft are different? Do you realize that trespassing, breaking and entering and burglary are different?
Bravo! Personally in my daily life, I don't care what words mean sometimes, but I realize if I was ever on the wrong end of a jury that I would help they would understand the difference.
If you killed a kid who jumped out in front of you car by accident on the way home, would you rather be accused of manslaughter or murder? Would you want a jury that understands the difference?
Suffice to say, these difference are written into law and are interpreted by juries of your peers and you would hope that a little education would go a long way.
Its the difference of 5 years to life in prison.
And as an aside the reason why you should call infringement and theft two separate things because one is tried in a criminal court and the other in a civil court.
One of them needs more than a reasonable doubt to prove guilty while the other does not. Like it or not the majority of us will have to sit on a jury someday and at least know a bit about law.
Hate to burst your bubble, but not only did the Soviets know about the bomb before they were used, but they already had the blueprints.
Actually, my bad. I forgot Beria had started a program in 1942 after being tipped of by someone that the American physicists had been stopped publishing information about the topic.
However, only after the atomic bombings in Japan happed did the Soviets know the American design worked. Had America played dumb and said the project was a waste and failure than the Soviets would have pursued the German design of dropping the entire reactor from the plane. (Which doesn't really work out that well)
The sad truth is you wanted to test the bomb as well as show to the Soviet Union that you have some big guns.
The irony is that the Soviets did not know about the bombs until after they were dropped. Had we sat quietly on them, then the Soviets might have not had an impiety to have their own nuclear program until we had engaged them openly in the Korean War.
Which might have meant 60 less years of communist rule in Eastern Europe, Russia, China, and North Korea.
The Japanese were determined to fight on to get a better peace deal. They had already lost the war so of course they were suing for peace. The only question remains, is it right to target military installations in the cities of your enemy during a time of war to force his surrender, knowing that tens of thousands of civilians will die.
I dunno... Lets ask what the Allied High Commanders and Staff thought:
General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman
"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Report from the post war United States Strategic Bombing Survey
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." And my favorite from the guy who actually encouraged Einstein to write FDR, Leo Szilard
"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?" Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hi roshima_and_Nagasaki#Opposition
So yeah... According to some of the major members of the US military and those who took part in the Manhattan project, the bombs were unneeded.
If you are using Visual Studio dotNet as your development environment you are not going to find Apache works too well.
I guess the question is why then the Visual Studio.Net?;)
I mean there is nothing wrong with it by itself, but you will eventually have to consider the whole cost of running the servers and the fact you have to run it on Windows.
This may not be an issue if money is not an option or if you've got a lot of people with Visual Studio experience on hand.
Otherwise... I don't see much Apache, PHP, and MySQL can't do for the small shops that the whole kit and caboodle MS could do either.
"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence," and Occam's razor.
Occam's razor never accounts for sociopaths, intelligent evil, or incompetent evil (see SCO).;)
That said... I would really doubt that an evil genius violated the GPL on purpose since it isn't that hard or costly just to release the credit or link the source on the Steam download.
At worst case it was "lazy evil" in which someone wanted to go home early instead of crediting the original authors.
. The real question is, given not only the incredibly large size of the universe, but also the almost incomprehensibly-long timelines, what are the chances that two intelligent species will be concurrently intelligent, civilized, and looking for each other... and furthermore, what is the chance that we are one of them (and at this very moment)?
All it takes is one civilization to reach a technological singularity in order to colonize the rest of the universe. Think of it like cosmic evolution vs natural selection. All the societies that die out will simply be dead and the ones that survive will be the ones that reach a state where they are no longer limited by constraints of mortality.
Once they reach this state... It is only a matter of time before the rest of the universe is colonized.
Why would we think a space probe would be noticed by someone?
More than likely they've already calculated all planets in the observable universe that have a percentage of creating carbon base life.
You know... Like how we can say that this planet has the same size, distance from the sun, and water content of earth by judging wobbles and radio waves.
Yes, and maybe we are alone because... that's what they want.
Again this only works with benign hands off intelligence. If there is life elsewhere in the universe there will be a continual probability that one will emerge that is completely hostile to all other intelligence and wishes to destroy or one that wishes to assimilate all other forms of intelligence to save it from itself.
If either of those two types of civilization comes about it will eventually attempt to assimilate the entire known universe and will fight with any other civilizations that disagree with their policies.
Secondly, why would an advanced civilization need to observe us anyways... They should have sufficient computing power to simulate our reality in order to understand how we work.
Even then... The Conquistadors didn't spend much time trying to figure out what the Aztecs were up too, but rather that it should be ended as quickly as possible and they follow their own set of rules of society.
Sure, you'd probably drop by a few nebulae and stars and even planets, but after you've seen a few, where to then? You could travel to other planets for lifetimes and still not run across intelligent life on other planets. It's not that truly interesting things aren't out there, it's just that the universe isn't very conducive to producing life-bearing planets. Sure, with so vastly many planets, it will happen (and obviously has), but finding life out there is like finding a needle in a haystack, and we're just now starting to be able to see the haystack. But here is the deal. Once a civilization has gone extra-solar and has the ability to colonize planets by traveling near or at the speed of light that it would only take a million years to colonize the galaxy.
Secondly... All civilizations will either reach a technological singularity or not leave their planet which means they might get something faster than the speed of light and a quicker way to reproduce themselves which leaves only 3 types of civilizations we might encounter:
A. Civilizations that don't want to colonize and don't want to interfere with the rest of the universe but may explore. B. Civilizations that want to save all sentient life in the universe by assimilating them or granting their knowledge in positive means.
Or...
C. Civilizations that see everything else as a threat and must be conquered or destroyed.
That said... You'll not see a good deal of type A because they want don't really want to interfere with the locals.
Which means we'll either see type B or C next which given their goals will only take less than a million years for them to show up and either blow our planet up or assimilate us into their collective nirvana or make us read their holy book
Even if an alien civilization was the hands off A type, they will eventually run into a C which either they'll have to duke it out one way or another because a true type C would basically sent its forces to every rock in the universe search for intelligence to conquer or destroy.
And we're talking about nano-bot drones that could cover every inch of land consuming all life or simply setting off a super blast of cosmic rays to vaporize all life in the solar system and then tossing the the matter into large collection points in order to stave off heat death.
So the question we should be asking is if there is other life in the universe, then why haven't they colonized all of it?
Either they don't care, don't want to interfere, or just haven't gotten around to us yet.
Either way we would notice if a civilizations started building dyson sphere or blowing other other systems in their goal of complete assimilation of the universe.
Personally, I think we are just early and therefore we get the chance to be the borgs of universe.
He also has [blogspot.com] longtime ties to racist groups and other far right nut bags. But, it's ok to elect a racist, as long as the white people aren't wire-tapped.
Ummm... I've never read or heard anywhere that supports that Ron Paul is racist and wants non-whites wiretapped. Even the closing paragraph of this blog says "Ron Paul may or may not be a racist"
That blog has proven nothing but tried to encourage the reader to start thinking that it could be possible that it is true.
I was excited at last November's election, but I've repented of it now. I'm neither Libertarian nor Constitutionalist, but I wouldn't hesitate to work with them to fix this. We need Greens in on this because nothing's safe when the whims of the rich trump the law. Most Americans are convinced that something's really wrong with this country, we're just not agreed on what exactly, but this is should be clear to everyone - we need the rule of law back.
If you really want change, hack the 2008 election by registering republican and vote Ron Paul in your state primaries regardless of your political affiliation. He's the only 2008 candidate that has voted against the war Iraq and the Patriot Act. I don't agree with all his views, but after hearing him speak out against Giuliani during the debates I realized he knew what many of us had been thinking all along about what is happening in Washington and overseas for the past several decades.
Personally, I don't think he's got a chance in hell at this point, but its worth trying I figured... And even if he looses its better to have him running as the republican candidate and loose than rather than have Rudy or the others win. If he wins so much the better.
If you don't know who this guy is you should see the video of him at Google HQ where they invited him to speak. He's quite against wire tapings, Patriot Act, and knows the real reason behind terrorism isn't because they hate our freedoms but rather our government foreign policy for the past 50 years.
(To be fair, he didn't vote in this particular bill for or against since he wasn't in DC because of the campaign but in 2001 he was one of the handful of people to actually vote against the original update)
Are you authority-loving, pro-corporate, free-market types getting this? Is the depth to which our system has sunk showing up on your shallow radar yet? You think it's OK for this industry organization to use this type of life-ruining intimidation tactic in order to protect their profits?
You can be anti-authority, anti-corporate, but free-market at the same time.
Its not hard. You simply have to commit to policies that disable the ability for corporations to use the federal government to enforce its power. Of course this might entail crippling the power of the federal government a bit or at least make congress look less attractive to buy.
Secondly, corporations are charted and granted by the US government as forms of protection for the shareholders against liability and hence are actually not truly free market in the sense of no government regulation.
Of course neither the any members of the federal government nor the corporations are going to be willing to give up said power.
But the point of the matter is that when someone is pro-big business and claims they are pro-free market, chances are they are free market in name only ignore this when it comes to using government in order to help them acheive profit for their shareholders.
I've said this before in previous posts... The whole reasoning behind copyright laws has been high jacked in order to get a government controlled monopoly on intellectual property to basically get handouts on a failing business model.
Two simple examples are designing for a category 4 hurricane and then getting hit with a category 6 or designing for a richtor 5 earthquake and then getting hit with a richtor 7 earthquake.
Why not just plan for the worst case scenario of the sun exploding and call it a day?
"Oh this new system doesn't work in it's current incarnation, we should go back to the other method" we should be asking "The new method we are trying to implement is flawed, how should we change it?"
Forging, destroying, or disposing of 100,000 paper ballots can be done but it is rather hard and time consuming. Forging, destroying, or disposing of 100,000 electronic ballots can be done and with only a few keystrokes.
The thing is, most of the people nay saying the loss of paper ballots aren't Luddites but are often the people who know technology well enough to understand what can potentially happen if there is a breach of security.
If electronic voting does happen it needs to print a paper receipt so not only will they have to smash a hard drive or two but also burn a few truckloads of paper ballots.
Should the federal government have the authority to tell state or local governments that they can't discriminate against blacks? That they must perform a trial by jury? etc...
Yes because it is in the constitution:
XIV Amendment
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The cries of "1984! 1984!" are woefully inaccurate, as these cameras are not in our homes, but in our streets, a place the police are 100% free to go. The police have a mandate to use all available technology to protect the public - CCTV is just another tool in the toolbox.
The problem is that are not if the police misuse the technology, but rather someone down the road who decides to do away with democracy.
Even though it is minor, these things build up over time so it has to be fought at every step of the way.
Yes, some of this is likely because of market share, but there's plenty of bragging rights associated with creating the first large-scale OS X compromise, so I wouldn't expect to see none.
As far as a history lesson to everyone, there were more viruses for OS 9 than there were OS X. Yet OS 9 had a even smaller market share (minuscule even) than OS X.
Help me out here. Do I root for the cities to undercut big telco (whom I customarily hate on general principles), or for private enterprise to win out over the government's desire to protect me from myself?
Personally, the Ron Paul supporter in me says that the Federal government should have no authority to tell the ISP, state, or local governments what they can or cannot do.
If the local governments wish to have their own municipal ISP then I can justify that because there is nothing in federal constitution that would prohibit such behavior. It would be up to the locals to decide if they wanted the issue passed under their own municipal legislation.
(On a side note, this is why the Federal Government needs to give more power to state and local governments simply because a single private citizen is more likely to get a law or issue passed in his/her local or state government than it is in the Federal government which in turns gives more power to the individual rather than say people with lots of money and lobbyists)
At the same time, I don't believe the ISPs should be forced to do business in that town if they don't want to.
So yes... You can be a libertarian and still support municipal ISPs.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally I find that this is probably a distasteful ruling -- voting is supposed to be a matter of conscience in one's own locality -- not somewhere across party lines where presumably money could also change hands to encourage the vote swap -- i.e. who says a person can't claim to vote swap with multiple people, or even use a spam list to fake the trades -- thus essentially buying votes -- which IS illegal.
If I ever got free reign of redesigning the constitution, I would do away with the current house of representatives and have a proportional vote based on nationwide percentage.
Maybe have 500 reps total and if you do the math that would be 300,000,000 US citizens divided by 500 so you would get a seat if you got 600,000 votes. If you get more than than that is absorbed and all you get is a seat for that person (this is not by party). Then if say there is less than 500 reps then the runner ups less than 600,000 can get seats ranking by total number of votes from all states.
That way we can just do away with this whole district issue which is being cheated and make put in people in the federal government that more people want.
On the other hand, if I had free reign, I would make the senate go back to the old way of having the state governments appointment in that if you don't like your senator you need to vote out your state representative. Which would dilute the effect of lobbying.
Of course... This is just me and my fantasies and I doubt anyone would ever implement them.
Do you realize that murder and manslaughter and aggravated assault are different?
Do you realize that robbery and theft are different?
Do you realize that trespassing, breaking and entering and burglary are different?
Bravo! Personally in my daily life, I don't care what words mean sometimes, but I realize if I was ever on the wrong end of a jury that I would help they would understand the difference.
If you killed a kid who jumped out in front of you car by accident on the way home, would you rather be accused of manslaughter or murder? Would you want a jury that understands the difference?
Suffice to say, these difference are written into law and are interpreted by juries of your peers and you would hope that a little education would go a long way.
Its the difference of 5 years to life in prison.
And as an aside the reason why you should call infringement and theft two separate things because one is tried in a criminal court and the other in a civil court.
One of them needs more than a reasonable doubt to prove guilty while the other does not. Like it or not the majority of us will have to sit on a jury someday and at least know a bit about law.
Hate to burst your bubble, but not only did the Soviets know about the bomb before they were used, but they already had the blueprints.
Actually, my bad. I forgot Beria had started a program in 1942 after being tipped of by someone that the American physicists had been stopped publishing information about the topic.
However, only after the atomic bombings in Japan happed did the Soviets know the American design worked. Had America played dumb and said the project was a waste and failure than the Soviets would have pursued the German design of dropping the entire reactor from the plane. (Which doesn't really work out that well)
There was one condition.
The Japanese got to keep their emperor.
The sad truth is you wanted to test the bomb as well as show to the Soviet Union that you have some big guns.
The irony is that the Soviets did not know about the bombs until after they were dropped. Had we sat quietly on them, then the Soviets might have not had an impiety to have their own nuclear program until we had engaged them openly in the Korean War.
Which might have meant 60 less years of communist rule in Eastern Europe, Russia, China, and North Korea.
I dunno... Lets ask what the Allied High Commanders and Staff thought:
General Dwight D. Eisenhower "In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman "The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Report from the post war United States Strategic Bombing Survey "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." And my favorite from the guy who actually encouraged Einstein to write FDR, Leo Szilard "Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?" Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_H
So yeah... According to some of the major members of the US military and those who took part in the Manhattan project, the bombs were unneeded.
If you are using Visual Studio dotNet as your development environment you are not going to find Apache works too well.
;)
I guess the question is why then the Visual Studio.Net?
I mean there is nothing wrong with it by itself, but you will eventually have to consider the whole cost of running the servers and the fact you have to run it on Windows.
This may not be an issue if money is not an option or if you've got a lot of people with Visual Studio experience on hand.
Otherwise... I don't see much Apache, PHP, and MySQL can't do for the small shops that the whole kit and caboodle MS could do either.
"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence," and Occam's razor.
;)
Occam's razor never accounts for sociopaths, intelligent evil, or incompetent evil (see SCO).
That said... I would really doubt that an evil genius violated the GPL on purpose since it isn't that hard or costly just to release the credit or link the source on the Steam download.
At worst case it was "lazy evil" in which someone wanted to go home early instead of crediting the original authors.
That would seem likely to violate the 'no killing' proposition that pacifism is based on?
What if these are militant pacifists?
. The real question is, given not only the incredibly large size of the universe, but also the almost incomprehensibly-long timelines, what are the chances that two intelligent species will be concurrently intelligent, civilized, and looking for each other ... and furthermore, what is the chance that we are one of them (and at this very moment)?
All it takes is one civilization to reach a technological singularity in order to colonize the rest of the universe. Think of it like cosmic evolution vs natural selection. All the societies that die out will simply be dead and the ones that survive will be the ones that reach a state where they are no longer limited by constraints of mortality.
Once they reach this state... It is only a matter of time before the rest of the universe is colonized.
Why would we think a space probe would be noticed by someone?
More than likely they've already calculated all planets in the observable universe that have a percentage of creating carbon base life.
You know... Like how we can say that this planet has the same size, distance from the sun, and water content of earth by judging wobbles and radio waves.
For example, you could re-engineer your opponent's DNA to reduce aggression. Or you could brain wash them. Etc.
Why not just blow up their planet with a Death Star and call it day?
Yes, and maybe we are alone because ... that's what they want.
Again this only works with benign hands off intelligence. If there is life elsewhere in the universe there will be a continual probability that one will emerge that is completely hostile to all other intelligence and wishes to destroy or one that wishes to assimilate all other forms of intelligence to save it from itself.
If either of those two types of civilization comes about it will eventually attempt to assimilate the entire known universe and will fight with any other civilizations that disagree with their policies.
Secondly, why would an advanced civilization need to observe us anyways... They should have sufficient computing power to simulate our reality in order to understand how we work.
Even then... The Conquistadors didn't spend much time trying to figure out what the Aztecs were up too, but rather that it should be ended as quickly as possible and they follow their own set of rules of society.
Secondly... All civilizations will either reach a technological singularity or not leave their planet which means they might get something faster than the speed of light and a quicker way to reproduce themselves which leaves only 3 types of civilizations we might encounter:
A. Civilizations that don't want to colonize and don't want to interfere with the rest of the universe but may explore.
B. Civilizations that want to save all sentient life in the universe by assimilating them or granting their knowledge in positive means.
Or...
C. Civilizations that see everything else as a threat and must be conquered or destroyed.
That said... You'll not see a good deal of type A because they want don't really want to interfere with the locals.
Which means we'll either see type B or C next which given their goals will only take less than a million years for them to show up and either blow our planet up or assimilate us into their collective nirvana or make us read their holy book
Even if an alien civilization was the hands off A type, they will eventually run into a C which either they'll have to duke it out one way or another because a true type C would basically sent its forces to every rock in the universe search for intelligence to conquer or destroy.
And we're talking about nano-bot drones that could cover every inch of land consuming all life or simply setting off a super blast of cosmic rays to vaporize all life in the solar system and then tossing the the matter into large collection points in order to stave off heat death.
So the question we should be asking is if there is other life in the universe, then why haven't they colonized all of it?
Either they don't care, don't want to interfere, or just haven't gotten around to us yet.
Either way we would notice if a civilizations started building dyson sphere or blowing other other systems in their goal of complete assimilation of the universe.
Personally, I think we are just early and therefore we get the chance to be the borgs of universe.
He also has [blogspot.com] longtime ties to racist groups and other far right nut bags. But, it's ok to elect a racist, as long as the white people aren't wire-tapped.
Ummm... I've never read or heard anywhere that supports that Ron Paul is racist and wants non-whites wiretapped. Even the closing paragraph of this blog says "Ron Paul may or may not be a racist"
That blog has proven nothing but tried to encourage the reader to start thinking that it could be possible that it is true.
If you want an unlocked phone, maybe you should .... well, I don't know. Maybe buy a fucking phone that is not fucking locked.
Any recommendations?
I was excited at last November's election, but I've repented of it now. I'm neither Libertarian nor Constitutionalist, but I wouldn't hesitate to work with them to fix this. We need Greens in on this because nothing's safe when the whims of the rich trump the law. Most Americans are convinced that something's really wrong with this country, we're just not agreed on what exactly, but this is should be clear to everyone - we need the rule of law back.
If you really want change, hack the 2008 election by registering republican and vote Ron Paul in your state primaries regardless of your political affiliation. He's the only 2008 candidate that has voted against the war Iraq and the Patriot Act. I don't agree with all his views, but after hearing him speak out against Giuliani during the debates I realized he knew what many of us had been thinking all along about what is happening in Washington and overseas for the past several decades.
Personally, I don't think he's got a chance in hell at this point, but its worth trying I figured... And even if he looses its better to have him running as the republican candidate and loose than rather than have Rudy or the others win. If he wins so much the better.
If you don't know who this guy is you should see the video of him at Google HQ where they invited him to speak. He's quite against wire tapings, Patriot Act, and knows the real reason behind terrorism isn't because they hate our freedoms but rather our government foreign policy for the past 50 years.
(To be fair, he didn't vote in this particular bill for or against since he wasn't in DC because of the campaign but in 2001 he was one of the handful of people to actually vote against the original update)
Are you authority-loving, pro-corporate, free-market types getting this? Is the depth to which our system has sunk showing up on your shallow radar yet? You think it's OK for this industry organization to use this type of life-ruining intimidation tactic in order to protect their profits?
You can be anti-authority, anti-corporate, but free-market at the same time.
Its not hard. You simply have to commit to policies that disable the ability for corporations to use the federal government to enforce its power. Of course this might entail crippling the power of the federal government a bit or at least make congress look less attractive to buy.
Secondly, corporations are charted and granted by the US government as forms of protection for the shareholders against liability and hence are actually not truly free market in the sense of no government regulation.
Of course neither the any members of the federal government nor the corporations are going to be willing to give up said power.
But the point of the matter is that when someone is pro-big business and claims they are pro-free market, chances are they are free market in name only ignore this when it comes to using government in order to help them acheive profit for their shareholders.
I've said this before in previous posts... The whole reasoning behind copyright laws has been high jacked in order to get a government controlled monopoly on intellectual property to basically get handouts on a failing business model.
These lawsuits show this plainly.
Two simple examples are designing for a category 4 hurricane and then getting hit with a category 6 or designing for a richtor 5 earthquake and then getting hit with a richtor 7 earthquake.
Why not just plan for the worst case scenario of the sun exploding and call it a day?
Well you just said the federal government should have no authority to tell locals what they can and cannot do.
Sorry. I should have added "In regards to the article and the issue it was discussing." which only includes municipal broadband.
Everything else still applies to its own little corner of legality.
"Oh this new system doesn't work in it's current incarnation, we should go back to the other method" we should be asking "The new method we are trying to implement is flawed, how should we change it?"
Forging, destroying, or disposing of 100,000 paper ballots can be done but it is rather hard and time consuming.
Forging, destroying, or disposing of 100,000 electronic ballots can be done and with only a few keystrokes.
The thing is, most of the people nay saying the loss of paper ballots aren't Luddites but are often the people who know technology well enough to understand what can potentially happen if there is a breach of security.
If electronic voting does happen it needs to print a paper receipt so not only will they have to smash a hard drive or two but also burn a few truckloads of paper ballots.
Yes because it is in the constitution:
XIV Amendment Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The cries of "1984! 1984!" are woefully inaccurate, as these cameras are not in our homes, but in our streets, a place the police are 100% free to go. The police have a mandate to use all available technology to protect the public - CCTV is just another tool in the toolbox.
The problem is that are not if the police misuse the technology, but rather someone down the road who decides to do away with democracy.
Even though it is minor, these things build up over time so it has to be fought at every step of the way.
Yes, some of this is likely because of market share, but there's plenty of bragging rights associated with creating the first large-scale OS X compromise, so I wouldn't expect to see none.
As far as a history lesson to everyone, there were more viruses for OS 9 than there were OS X. Yet OS 9 had a even smaller market share (minuscule even) than OS X.
Help me out here. Do I root for the cities to undercut big telco (whom I customarily hate on general principles), or for private enterprise to win out over the government's desire to protect me from myself?
Personally, the Ron Paul supporter in me says that the Federal government should have no authority to tell the ISP, state, or local governments what they can or cannot do.
If the local governments wish to have their own municipal ISP then I can justify that because there is nothing in federal constitution that would prohibit such behavior. It would be up to the locals to decide if they wanted the issue passed under their own municipal legislation.
(On a side note, this is why the Federal Government needs to give more power to state and local governments simply because a single private citizen is more likely to get a law or issue passed in his/her local or state government than it is in the Federal government which in turns gives more power to the individual rather than say people with lots of money and lobbyists)
At the same time, I don't believe the ISPs should be forced to do business in that town if they don't want to.
So yes... You can be a libertarian and still support municipal ISPs.