Macs are at least a step up from Windows in terms of viruses and security - which I expect is why the school chose macs rather than pc's. Keeping a bunch of PC laptops free of viruses would be a nightmare for any public-school IT department. If they even have an IT department, and it isn't just a second job piled onto the computer teacher's desk.
There is NO WAY that Obama was worse than Hillary (who fully approved the invasion of Iraq without looking over the evidence) or John Edwards (willing to be nominated while he was having a reckless affair, which shows how much he values honesty *and* the efforts of all working for him).
Simply not possible.
What I think is going on here, is that Obama is being called awful simply because he's not a savior. There are a lot of big messes going on right now, people. Any one of them would be the most notable thing to happen in a presidency - and we're getting all of them at once. He inherits two wars, a historic recession, and now possibly the worst ecological disaster in US history.
McCain would clearly have been worse, just by continuing more of Bush's policies than Obama. I wish Obama were continuing none, but at least now the economy has been pulled back from the cliff.
And above all else, Obama shows himself as better than McCain simply by not foisting on us an obscenity like Palin.
And not blame them for the short shelf life of mediocre media that's been utterly emasculated of insight and intelligence, to better suit the perceived bland tastes of the populations lowest common denominators.
From what I read, this new "iOS4" (ugh, I am so iFreaking TIRED of that little iMarketing iShtick...) will be able to do bluetooth keyboard...but I still don't know if it's for the new phone only, the new phone and the 3GS, or the 3G too.
I have a 3G and I don't think I'm upgrading. So yeah, if the bluetooth keyboard doesn't work for the 3G, I may be getting the Jailbreak Cydia version of that too. I don't mind paying for it, rather than knuckle under to Jobs' further exploitation of my techie addiction.
Equal protection does mean equal freedom from prosecution for the same act, which therefore *does* mean equal rights under the law.
And some states outlawing abortion for the first 3 while others permitting it for those months, basically means women have protection-therefore-rights in some states that they don't in others.
Fannie doesn't guarantee "bad loans". It guarantees loans to higher-risk customers than other loans. That doesn't mean all those loans will fail - in over 98% of Fannie Mae loans were paid off without any problems through 2008. At it's worst in 2009 this went to 97.8%. Not great, but still better than the industry average.
And as for that building, that means construction jobs and many other related jobs for Long Island City, and New York in general. I expect that's a large part of why it was Federally backed.
Everyone has different definitions of what "massive micromanagement" means. For example, BP no doubt felt that government regulations were an unnecessary pain in the ass. Now everyone in the gulf wishes the government had managed BP quite a bit more closely.
That doesn't mean it's bad for America. Look at the way that old people and the disabled used to be screwed over before Social Security, and the benefit it provides is pretty clear.
If they do business across state lines, they're subject to being controlled to some extent by the Federal government- so says the Constitution.
But they don't have to be in more than one state, to be a trust. A mining company OR group of companies can collude to controls all of the mining in a state - and all the worker safety, wages, environmental controls, etc. etc.
And with their tremendous money and power, the state government can be bent to their will, to the detriment of the state and its citizens.
This isn't only a hypothetical problem - this is a real issue in areas like West Virginia.
As to whether the legislation is needed "like I claim it is", I think that's pretty clear when you look at American history. We had numerous horrible situations before our current Federal regulations and institutions were put in place - that's why we developed and them in the first place. If you haven't read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair, I'd recommend that as only one example.
I'm not saying all government is good - what I am saying is that Federal power is needed to protect civilians from the massive money and resources of corporate power. As well as the potential for states to become feudal empires of corruption serving private interests over the people's.
Although if he really were channeling the founders, he'd realize that we tried local governance with the Articles of Confederation, realized that sucked, and went on to want a stronger (but still balanced) Federal system.
I would suggest fewer functional psychopaths running the government - and more likely the corporations. Who are running our lives nearly as much as the governments - and in some countries, more so.
I write this from a company where I'll soon be off lunch break, in fact.
To work with this computer network metaphor, you do need a system-wide set of protocols and rules in place, don't you? So yes, micromanaging nodes at smaller levels is impractical and impossible. However, letting those nodes set their own rules for how they interact with other nodes - and treat information within their own nodes - would also be a spawning pool for chaos.
I disagree that our government is too big overall. Some parts are too big, and other parts are too small - or more accurately, mismanaged.
Let's take the recent mess with BP. Would that issue be any easier, with a LESS powerful government? Arguably what we need there is a more powerful government, with both more oversight and more law enforcement.
Thank you. Why many so-called Libertarians don't see that corporate power is at least as dangerous to private citizens as governments, I will never understand.
I haven't missed it, I've been conscious and sentient.
What seems to be going on is, a lot of people don't like the bills - but some of them for "going too far", and others for *not going far enough*.
I think it's fair to say that those who don't the bills go far enough, still think they're better off than they would be under a continued Republican conservative administration.
I agree with that entire list. The one problem is that, by most "strict interpretations" of the Constitution, "Selling out to big business" is not unconstitutional.
For instance, trust busting wouldn't be legal. Or any number of needed restrictions on corporations that take a rather wide interpretation of the Interstate commerce clause.
Well that's now a separate argument. I can disagree - for instance, no NASA or medicare or social security, or FEMA or OSHA, those are big problems for me.
Plus i find it pretty likely that, with a return to those "original powers", de facto segregation would be put right back in pretty quickly.
You're absolutely right. This mess was created in a bipartisan fashion, with Republicans and Democrats crafting the legislation and approving it, and Democratic President Bill Clinton signing it into law.
I wish people were pointing at that, the real culprit - those specific policies.
Rather than at vague bogeymen like "Big government". Big government was just fine, when Glass-Steagal was in action. Making it smaller by repealing Glass-Steagal is a major ingredient in this shite sandwich we're now trying to, er, pass behind us.
- Fannie Mae didn't cause the housing bubble.
- Fannie Mae didn't cause banks to create credit default swaps
- Fannie Mae didn't cause AIG to lie or to fail
- Fannie Mae didn't cause bad-faith players to create packages which **they knew would fail**, and then knowingly sell these as good investments to clients, and then ***bet against these clients'
interests***
Also, while it's technically that Fannie Mae received more bailout money than any *single* bank, that's a rather convenient comparison. Fannie Mae is a government program, dealing with a multitude of private banks. And the cost to keep Fannie Mae afloat is a fraction of what's been *separately* paid out to private banks, to save the world economy from their irresponsible and deregulated actions.
Fannie Mae could be the pebble that started the avalanche - but the avalanche is something else.
Well the question was not about if slavery was constitutional. The point was that if Constitutional and Federal power were scaled back so that states could do whatever they wanted, states could bring back slavery. If they did, would that be okay?
Even if it does make us slaves, which is very debatable, that kind of debt is not a problem inherent in central government. It's just a problem with *this* one.
And it's a problem that could just as easily occur in a state government. In fact it is happening right now.
Well, some states outlawing abortion is a *huge* problem for at least half of America. Arguably all. Someone shouldn't have rights in one state that they don't in another, especially when it's affecting their life and future.
Of course, I might have a different position if I felt an early fetus was a full human citizen, and not a collection of cells that could one day become one. But if abortion was illegal, I sure wouldn't think it was right for some states to make it legal, either.
Laws for important matters need basic consistency across states, for people in states to have equal protection under the law.
Make it easy for us. List exactly what the US government is now doing, that you think is
a) against the Constitution
b) bad for America
For example, is Social Security bad for America? Or how about the Civil Rights bill, including the forced desegration of privately owned public services? Or how about NASA - that's definitely not in the Constitution.
There's a lot of people who are pretty vague about what they mean, when they say "as the founders originally intended".
I agree that the Internet hasn't broken the political system - it's merely revealed its flaws, so they can now be fixed.
But I disagree utterly that we need less central authority. We need Federal-level policies and regulations **because of** the size of this country. If a structure isn't clear at the top level, the results are breeding spots for corruption, mismanagement and chaos.
Perhaps we may be in agreement, if "local issues and positions" don't include:
- worker's rights
- environmental regulations, food regulations, or large corporate or industrial regulations of any sort.
- social security
- medicare
- roads
- FEMA
- NASA>br>
- the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. etc.
...and I'm sure I'm forgetting many things, because the government does so much.
We can see right now what not enough Federal involvement in offshore drilling has given us. As a side note, I'd like to recommend the Facebook group: "Plugging the gulf oil leak with the complete works of Ayn Rand".
Slashdot Mirror
Macs are at least a step up from Windows in terms of viruses and security - which I expect is why the school chose macs rather than pc's. Keeping a bunch of PC laptops free of viruses would be a nightmare for any public-school IT department. If they even have an IT department, and it isn't just a second job piled onto the computer teacher's desk.
There is NO WAY that Obama was worse than Hillary (who fully approved the invasion of Iraq without looking over the evidence) or John Edwards (willing to be nominated while he was having a reckless affair, which shows how much he values honesty *and* the efforts of all working for him).
Simply not possible.
What I think is going on here, is that Obama is being called awful simply because he's not a savior. There are a lot of big messes going on right now, people. Any one of them would be the most notable thing to happen in a presidency - and we're getting all of them at once. He inherits two wars, a historic recession, and now possibly the worst ecological disaster in US history.
McCain would clearly have been worse, just by continuing more of Bush's policies than Obama. I wish Obama were continuing none, but at least now the economy has been pulled back from the cliff.
And above all else, Obama shows himself as better than McCain simply by not foisting on us an obscenity like Palin.
And not blame them for the short shelf life of mediocre media that's been utterly emasculated of insight and intelligence, to better suit the perceived bland tastes of the populations lowest common denominators.
From what I read, this new "iOS4" (ugh, I am so iFreaking TIRED of that little iMarketing iShtick...) will be able to do bluetooth keyboard...but I still don't know if it's for the new phone only, the new phone and the 3GS, or the 3G too. I have a 3G and I don't think I'm upgrading. So yeah, if the bluetooth keyboard doesn't work for the 3G, I may be getting the Jailbreak Cydia version of that too. I don't mind paying for it, rather than knuckle under to Jobs' further exploitation of my techie addiction.
Equal protection does mean equal freedom from prosecution for the same act, which therefore *does* mean equal rights under the law. And some states outlawing abortion for the first 3 while others permitting it for those months, basically means women have protection-therefore-rights in some states that they don't in others.
Man do I suck at math - at it's worst in 2009 it went went to 96.8%.
Fannie doesn't guarantee "bad loans". It guarantees loans to higher-risk customers than other loans. That doesn't mean all those loans will fail - in over 98% of Fannie Mae loans were paid off without any problems through 2008. At it's worst in 2009 this went to 97.8%. Not great, but still better than the industry average.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_takeover_of_Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac#Credit_default_swaps
And as for that building, that means construction jobs and many other related jobs for Long Island City, and New York in general. I expect that's a large part of why it was Federally backed.
Everyone has different definitions of what "massive micromanagement" means. For example, BP no doubt felt that government regulations were an unnecessary pain in the ass. Now everyone in the gulf wishes the government had managed BP quite a bit more closely.
That doesn't mean it's bad for America. Look at the way that old people and the disabled used to be screwed over before Social Security, and the benefit it provides is pretty clear.
If they do business across state lines, they're subject to being controlled to some extent by the Federal government- so says the Constitution.
But they don't have to be in more than one state, to be a trust. A mining company OR group of companies can collude to controls all of the mining in a state - and all the worker safety, wages, environmental controls, etc. etc.
And with their tremendous money and power, the state government can be bent to their will, to the detriment of the state and its citizens.
This isn't only a hypothetical problem - this is a real issue in areas like West Virginia.
As to whether the legislation is needed "like I claim it is", I think that's pretty clear when you look at American history. We had numerous horrible situations before our current Federal regulations and institutions were put in place - that's why we developed and them in the first place. If you haven't read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair, I'd recommend that as only one example.
I'm not saying all government is good - what I am saying is that Federal power is needed to protect civilians from the massive money and resources of corporate power. As well as the potential for states to become feudal empires of corruption serving private interests over the people's.
Although if he really were channeling the founders, he'd realize that we tried local governance with the Articles of Confederation, realized that sucked, and went on to want a stronger (but still balanced) Federal system.
I would suggest fewer functional psychopaths running the government - and more likely the corporations. Who are running our lives nearly as much as the governments - and in some countries, more so.
I write this from a company where I'll soon be off lunch break, in fact.
To work with this computer network metaphor, you do need a system-wide set of protocols and rules in place, don't you? So yes, micromanaging nodes at smaller levels is impractical and impossible. However, letting those nodes set their own rules for how they interact with other nodes - and treat information within their own nodes - would also be a spawning pool for chaos.
I disagree that our government is too big overall. Some parts are too big, and other parts are too small - or more accurately, mismanaged.
Let's take the recent mess with BP. Would that issue be any easier, with a LESS powerful government? Arguably what we need there is a more powerful government, with both more oversight and more law enforcement.
Thank you. Why many so-called Libertarians don't see that corporate power is at least as dangerous to private citizens as governments, I will never understand.
I haven't missed it, I've been conscious and sentient.
What seems to be going on is, a lot of people don't like the bills - but some of them for "going too far", and others for *not going far enough*.
I think it's fair to say that those who don't the bills go far enough, still think they're better off than they would be under a continued Republican conservative administration.
I agree with that entire list. The one problem is that, by most "strict interpretations" of the Constitution, "Selling out to big business" is not unconstitutional.
For instance, trust busting wouldn't be legal. Or any number of needed restrictions on corporations that take a rather wide interpretation of the Interstate commerce clause.
Well that's now a separate argument. I can disagree - for instance, no NASA or medicare or social security, or FEMA or OSHA, those are big problems for me.
Plus i find it pretty likely that, with a return to those "original powers", de facto segregation would be put right back in pretty quickly.
You're absolutely right. This mess was created in a bipartisan fashion, with Republicans and Democrats crafting the legislation and approving it, and Democratic President Bill Clinton signing it into law.
I wish people were pointing at that, the real culprit - those specific policies.
Rather than at vague bogeymen like "Big government". Big government was just fine, when Glass-Steagal was in action. Making it smaller by repealing Glass-Steagal is a major ingredient in this shite sandwich we're now trying to, er, pass behind us.
Nonsense for many reasons.
- Fannie Mae didn't cause the housing bubble.
- Fannie Mae didn't cause banks to create credit default swaps
- Fannie Mae didn't cause AIG to lie or to fail
- Fannie Mae didn't cause bad-faith players to create packages which **they knew would fail**, and then knowingly sell these as good investments to clients, and then ***bet against these clients' interests***
Also, while it's technically that Fannie Mae received more bailout money than any *single* bank, that's a rather convenient comparison. Fannie Mae is a government program, dealing with a multitude of private banks. And the cost to keep Fannie Mae afloat is a fraction of what's been *separately* paid out to private banks, to save the world economy from their irresponsible and deregulated actions.
Fannie Mae could be the pebble that started the avalanche - but the avalanche is something else.
http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/
Well the question was not about if slavery was constitutional. The point was that if Constitutional and Federal power were scaled back so that states could do whatever they wanted, states could bring back slavery. If they did, would that be okay?
Even if it does make us slaves, which is very debatable, that kind of debt is not a problem inherent in central government. It's just a problem with *this* one.
And it's a problem that could just as easily occur in a state government. In fact it is happening right now.
Well, some states outlawing abortion is a *huge* problem for at least half of America. Arguably all. Someone shouldn't have rights in one state that they don't in another, especially when it's affecting their life and future.
Of course, I might have a different position if I felt an early fetus was a full human citizen, and not a collection of cells that could one day become one. But if abortion was illegal, I sure wouldn't think it was right for some states to make it legal, either.
Laws for important matters need basic consistency across states, for people in states to have equal protection under the law.
Thank you.
Make it easy for us. List exactly what the US government is now doing, that you think is
a) against the Constitution
b) bad for America
For example, is Social Security bad for America? Or how about the Civil Rights bill, including the forced desegration of privately owned public services? Or how about NASA - that's definitely not in the Constitution.
There's a lot of people who are pretty vague about what they mean, when they say "as the founders originally intended".
I agree that the Internet hasn't broken the political system - it's merely revealed its flaws, so they can now be fixed.
...and I'm sure I'm forgetting many things, because the government does so much.
But I disagree utterly that we need less central authority. We need Federal-level policies and regulations **because of** the size of this country. If a structure isn't clear at the top level, the results are breeding spots for corruption, mismanagement and chaos.
Perhaps we may be in agreement, if "local issues and positions" don't include:
- worker's rights
- environmental regulations, food regulations, or large corporate or industrial regulations of any sort.
- social security
- medicare
- roads
- FEMA
- NASA>br> - the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. etc.
We can see right now what not enough Federal involvement in offshore drilling has given us. As a side note, I'd like to recommend the Facebook group: "Plugging the gulf oil leak with the complete works of Ayn Rand".