It is called the Interstate commerce clause, it only gives the Federal government the authority to regulate private trade between borders. No where is the government allowed to print and hand out money. Read the Federalist papers, it is very clear this is what the Framers were trying to avoid.
For the first time in a long time, the Fed Funds Rate was lower then inflation. That is to say, the Real Fed Funds Rate was negative. You couldn't afford to not get a loan! Naturally, this increased the money supply (by definition), and combined with new types of loans that we had never seen before (AIG was the biggest victim of this) because of certain deregulation (another thing we saw during the great depression as you pointed out), it caused borrowing, more money was invested in things you might use a loan for, say, houses, and prices went up. The new money filters out through the economy, rich down, turning good decisions at the time to bad ones (and causing accusations of greed), then when energy and costs of living go up, people couldn't afford to continue payments, and all of a sudden, prices pop.
The last time the Fed Funds Rate was this low was the 1970s. The time before that, the 1920s. Perhaps there is a connection? The Housing Bubble in 4 Easy Steps
"Fox guarding the hen house"... Like Anarchy? Or Government regulation? Both are remarkable for their efficiency infringing people's freedoms and rights.
I can't imagine why you would think it is overly complicated. Git is able to pull files in much the same way Subversion is, you can do it via HTTP, WebDAV, or a special Git protocol, as well as SSH and rsync. try "man git-remote git-fetch". Ideally you should have a "bare" public repo that you push to and that other people pull from, but that isn't necessary (that workflow is how Git is designed to work, and it does make life much easier).
I have found that for hobby use you want to stay away from the centralized models, having the entire history sitting locally (and Git, depending on the history, often packs the entire repository smaller then a single SVN checkout) serves the purpose much better.
Healthcare in the US is one of the most tightly regulated in the world. We cannot import drugs at a cheaper price because of FDA regulations. Health insurance is regulated - in a bad way, tied to your employer. And every time government intervenes, it creates more unanticipated problems. No, we ought to scrap the whole system and build it up again, from scratch. The entire FDA, all the laws and regulations. We need to bring capitalism back - hospitals and pharmaceuticals don't want to charge the minimum when insurance is paying for it.
I would also cite Patents as a major source of large prices, but a patent system is mandated by the Constitution and we are the only real innovator in Health care right now, because of it (patents do greatly stimulate innovation in the pharmaceutical industry, at a cost to us customers).
1. You must be speaking about a different McCain and Palin, the ones I see denounced their own party over those very same old policies and corruption scandals.
2. Show me a case where McCain's or Sarah's personal views worked their way into their policy, because that article doesn't.
3. Since when was net neutrality a good thing? You want to tell other people how to use their private property? Change the way the Internet has worked since the beginning? There are no signs net neutrality regulations are absolutely necessary, or would do any better then the current situation, popular opinion and existing legislation seems to be working quite nicely. And do you mean this McCain was funded by the telcos? Over a ban on taxes? Being the two time chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, who do you propose the telcos should have given money to?
No it wouldn't. Look up how the process to get on the ballot works today. If there is a "third" party candidate worth anything, they should have no problem getting their state party to get the some thousand signatures for a petition or whatever other way you get on the ballot -- and they usually do not have such a problem.
While we are making an amendment, lets get *rid* of the party system entirely, and just let me cast a vote for multiple people, either approval or preferential voting, say (I think, this too, would need to be done at the state level).
Except for the fact that would be unconstitutional. States select their presidential candidates independently, and the political parties of each state independently nominate their candidate to appear on the ballot.
There was no attempt to prevent people from knowing the website address though. This is a link, not information in general. It is still a bad thing to do, don't get me wrong. Telling other people what they can or cannot do with their own property? I bet the town hates freedom.
I am only on a campaign to stop needless FUD, not to promote either president (both of which seem to have no interest in our monetary policy, massive debt, or personal or economic freedom, my personal issues). That said, I do highly respect Sarah for sticking to her beliefs when other politicians would be long lost.
If you are willing to cite facts and respectfully disagree, I respect you.
The NYT story was published eight days after this one from her hometown: http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2008/09/05/breaking_news/doc48c1c8a60d6d9379155484.txt which claims she never attempted anything. I would take this story with as much caution as I do the New York Times, coming from an area where she has an 80% approval rating, and the NYT story coming from an area dramatically opposed. It is an account from (an otherwise unheard of) Laura Chase, I cannot find any sources to back it up. This article (which I hope is a little more neutral) mostly agrees with the Wasilla story, and comes a day after the NYT story, http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2008/09/14/while-mayor-did-palin-ban-books.htm
I did a search for author "Michael Willhoite" and the book "Daddy's roommate" over their catalog http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=72 , and the only one in the library network is kept in Talkeetna, 70 miles away. Either the book was eventually removed, or relocated, or it never existed. I won't assume any one though. The book certainly could have existed during that time period however.
That does not excuse the fact that you make no attempt to get your issues correct. Who are you to say that other people are wrong when you can't get the facts straight yourself? What, your UID is lower? Gimme a break. You are looking for reasons to smear a side you don't support.
As we've noted, Palin did not attempt to ban any library books. We don't know if Emmons' resistance to Palin's questions about possible censorship had anything to do with Emmons' firing. And we have no idea if the protests had any impact on Palin at all. There simply isn't any evidence that we can find either way. Palin did re-hire Emmons the following day, saying that she now felt she had the librarianâ(TM)s backing. Emmons continued to serve as librarian until August 1999, when the Chicago Tribune reports that she resigned.
And again, she says those are her personal views, not the views of her as a leader. I highly respect someone who can hold a set of personal morals and stick to them regardless of the situation, especially if they recognize it isn't something to force upon other people. That sure beats most all politicians in Washington today.
Stop dodging the issues. FUD is the very thing slashdotters typically campaign against unless, of course, it happens to be a political opponent.
She never advocated for the teaching of creationism in schools, she did say there isn't a problem addressing it in class, and that was only in a debate.
She never demanded books be pulled from shelves: she was trying to address the opposite, what would happen if an angry parent, say, demanded a book be pulled? Oh, The librarian in question was re-hired the next day.
At least she understands that the federal government isn't a place to enforce your views, personal or economic, on other people, and her veto record clearly shows that.
In a free society, we have to accept the notion that people can make bad choices for themselves, and consequences will come. Everyone says they believe in freedom, but usually when it comes to other people's decisions, then all that goes away, and we say no you are doing it wrong, and we try and restrict freedom.
We must accept that people can make decisions we may not agree with, but since it doesn't infringe on my right to life or liberty, we can not tell those people what to do.
I don't know what all the fuss is about, you seem to support my argument very nicely. Some people go crazy over the sight of a Christmas tree in a school, when it isn't infringing your rights at all.
Creationism isn't science (it cannot be effectively tested with the scientific method, and cannot be repeated), and therefore doesn't belong in a science class. It is funny to see creationists, when confronted with Scientology or the Flying Spagetti Monster (which roughly teaches the same thing), to suddenly reverse their position on teaching creationism. Religion does deserve time in school, however, which you do a good job of pointing out, and it must be religions that actually affect our daily living, Christianity and Judaism, Islam, Greek/Roman Mythology, and maybe some others.
Stop saying it is a throw-away vote - it isn't. A single vote is statistically meaningless anyways, it doesn't matter who you vote for - it is about who the masses want (which is why voting, if you know who you are voting for, is still important).
Want to really throw away your vote? Vote for big government and 14-digit debt. Vote for the nanny state or the police state. Vote for the status quo. That is how you really throw away your vote.
We are not going change what people think it says unless we start acknowledging what the constitution actually says.
Teaching or establishing religion by government is unconstitutional. Teaching about religion is important however, and completely within the bounds of the constitution. Acknowledging religion is much different then establishing it. Religion, specifically Christianity, is firmly rooted in our history, and appears all over the place in modern day media.
Additionally, I am hard pressed to find any ruling regarding the teaching about religion (informational) as "unconstitutional".
Like it or not, net neutrality IS an infringement on freedom. I think all of the problems we have had thus far could be solved with existing legislation, there is need for new laws as of yet.
No, the first and only goal of any politician is to remain in power. The first role of government is to protect the citizen's rights. Naturally, making sure the government doesn't collapse is a prerequisite to this.
If you are so sure the congress can't pass good laws, what makes you so confident in the supreme court, them taking their invisible pen to write new laws that clearly do not exist in any bill or the US Constitution.
It is the job of the courts to interpret laws, not write in what they think should be there. It is the job of Congress alone to regulate. I'll say this again: It is the job of congress to create the "living document" that people call it, not the courts.
They're fine with destroying the earth as long as they can save $0.20 a gallon on gas for the next year.
There are certain things that should not be up for vote by the people, and the environment is probably at the top of that list.
I completely agree with your first two points, but I have to call you on this one: It wouldn't be "destroying the Earth," at least not nearly as much we are destroying it some other ways, there is plenty of land that wouldn't be touched. The estimate I heard was less then 1%. If you are afraid we might go over that number, you can sell the rights to only portions to ensure this. If you environmentalists are still afraid, buy the land yourself and protect it, there is no problem with that. Another thing that should not be up to the people to vote for is money: In any democracy, you are going to succeed until the voters realize they can vote themselves "free" money. Guess what, that money isn't free, it comes out of the tax payers pocket. If you print it, the value is deflated, and the working class that is the last to receive the new money is hurt greatly. Either way it is lose-lose.
What do we need a new laws for? Most of the existing problems, false advertising or anti-competitive behavior, could be solved with existing laws, if the right people would bother using them. If and only if those attempts fail, will we need new laws.
If all else fails, we simply need competition, look at what Version FiOS has done.
Slashdot Mirror
It is called the Interstate commerce clause, it only gives the Federal government the authority to regulate private trade between borders. No where is the government allowed to print and hand out money. Read the Federalist papers, it is very clear this is what the Framers were trying to avoid.
That's only half the story.
The Myth that Laissez Faire Is Responsible for Our Present Crisis
For the first time in a long time, the Fed Funds Rate was lower then inflation. That is to say, the Real Fed Funds Rate was negative. You couldn't afford to not get a loan! Naturally, this increased the money supply (by definition), and combined with new types of loans that we had never seen before (AIG was the biggest victim of this) because of certain deregulation (another thing we saw during the great depression as you pointed out), it caused borrowing, more money was invested in things you might use a loan for, say, houses, and prices went up. The new money filters out through the economy, rich down, turning good decisions at the time to bad ones (and causing accusations of greed), then when energy and costs of living go up, people couldn't afford to continue payments, and all of a sudden, prices pop.
The last time the Fed Funds Rate was this low was the 1970s. The time before that, the 1920s. Perhaps there is a connection?
The Housing Bubble in 4 Easy Steps
"Fox guarding the hen house"... Like Anarchy? Or Government regulation? Both are remarkable for their efficiency infringing people's freedoms and rights.
Does GIT support WebDAV?
Yep (or read "pull"-only support with no WebDAV). Git supports SSH, it's own protocol, and the rsync protocol too. (Git isn't all caps unlike SVN)
I can't imagine why you would think it is overly complicated. Git is able to pull files in much the same way Subversion is, you can do it via HTTP, WebDAV, or a special Git protocol, as well as SSH and rsync. try "man git-remote git-fetch". Ideally you should have a "bare" public repo that you push to and that other people pull from, but that isn't necessary (that workflow is how Git is designed to work, and it does make life much easier).
I have found that for hobby use you want to stay away from the centralized models, having the entire history sitting locally (and Git, depending on the history, often packs the entire repository smaller then a single SVN checkout) serves the purpose much better.
(Yup my UID is prime ;)
I was agreeing with you up to...
... you mean to say it was a state sanctioned murder? gotcha...luckily we have those too...
The death penalty is a power too big for government to hold, but under no cases can it be even remotely defined as "murder".
Healthcare in the US is one of the most tightly regulated in the world. We cannot import drugs at a cheaper price because of FDA regulations. Health insurance is regulated - in a bad way, tied to your employer. And every time government intervenes, it creates more unanticipated problems. No, we ought to scrap the whole system and build it up again, from scratch. The entire FDA, all the laws and regulations. We need to bring capitalism back - hospitals and pharmaceuticals don't want to charge the minimum when insurance is paying for it.
I would also cite Patents as a major source of large prices, but a patent system is mandated by the Constitution and we are the only real innovator in Health care right now, because of it (patents do greatly stimulate innovation in the pharmaceutical industry, at a cost to us customers).
1. You must be speaking about a different McCain and Palin, the ones I see denounced their own party over those very same old policies and corruption scandals.
2. Show me a case where McCain's or Sarah's personal views worked their way into their policy, because that article doesn't.
3. Since when was net neutrality a good thing? You want to tell other people how to use their private property? Change the way the Internet has worked since the beginning? There are no signs net neutrality regulations are absolutely necessary, or would do any better then the current situation, popular opinion and existing legislation seems to be working quite nicely. And do you mean this McCain was funded by the telcos? Over a ban on taxes? Being the two time chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, who do you propose the telcos should have given money to?
No it wouldn't. Look up how the process to get on the ballot works today. If there is a "third" party candidate worth anything, they should have no problem getting their state party to get the some thousand signatures for a petition or whatever other way you get on the ballot -- and they usually do not have such a problem.
While we are making an amendment, lets get *rid* of the party system entirely, and just let me cast a vote for multiple people, either approval or preferential voting, say (I think, this too, would need to be done at the state level).
Except for the fact that would be unconstitutional. States select their presidential candidates independently, and the political parties of each state independently nominate their candidate to appear on the ballot.
There was no attempt to prevent people from knowing the website address though. This is a link, not information in general.
It is still a bad thing to do, don't get me wrong. Telling other people what they can or cannot do with their own property? I bet the town hates freedom.
Um... the "Streisand Effect" applies to censored information, how censoring something makes it only more available. Not the case here.
I am only on a campaign to stop needless FUD, not to promote either president (both of which seem to have no interest in our monetary policy, massive debt, or personal or economic freedom, my personal issues). That said, I do highly respect Sarah for sticking to her beliefs when other politicians would be long lost.
If you are willing to cite facts and respectfully disagree, I respect you.
The NYT story was published eight days after this one from her hometown: http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2008/09/05/breaking_news/doc48c1c8a60d6d9379155484.txt which claims she never attempted anything. I would take this story with as much caution as I do the New York Times, coming from an area where she has an 80% approval rating, and the NYT story coming from an area dramatically opposed. It is an account from (an otherwise unheard of) Laura Chase, I cannot find any sources to back it up. This article (which I hope is a little more neutral) mostly agrees with the Wasilla story, and comes a day after the NYT story, http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2008/09/14/while-mayor-did-palin-ban-books.htm
I did a search for author "Michael Willhoite" and the book "Daddy's roommate" over their catalog http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=72 , and the only one in the library network is kept in Talkeetna, 70 miles away. Either the book was eventually removed, or relocated, or it never existed. I won't assume any one though. The book certainly could have existed during that time period however.
That does not excuse the fact that you make no attempt to get your issues correct. Who are you to say that other people are wrong when you can't get the facts straight yourself? What, your UID is lower? Gimme a break. You are looking for reasons to smear a side you don't support.
And again, she says those are her personal views, not the views of her as a leader. I highly respect someone who can hold a set of personal morals and stick to them regardless of the situation, especially if they recognize it isn't something to force upon other people. That sure beats most all politicians in Washington today.
Stop dodging the issues. FUD is the very thing slashdotters typically campaign against unless, of course, it happens to be a political opponent.
Wow, how do people manage to fall for this stuff.
She never advocated for the teaching of creationism in schools, she did say there isn't a problem addressing it in class, and that was only in a debate.
She never demanded books be pulled from shelves: she was trying to address the opposite, what would happen if an angry parent, say, demanded a book be pulled? Oh, The librarian in question was re-hired the next day.
At least she understands that the federal government isn't a place to enforce your views, personal or economic, on other people, and her veto record clearly shows that.
Get your facts straight, and check your spelling too please: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html
In a free society, we have to accept the notion that people can make bad choices for themselves, and consequences will come. Everyone says they believe in freedom, but usually when it comes to other people's decisions, then all that goes away, and we say no you are doing it wrong, and we try and restrict freedom.
We must accept that people can make decisions we may not agree with, but since it doesn't infringe on my right to life or liberty, we can not tell those people what to do.
I don't know what all the fuss is about, you seem to support my argument very nicely. Some people go crazy over the sight of a Christmas tree in a school, when it isn't infringing your rights at all.
Creationism isn't science (it cannot be effectively tested with the scientific method, and cannot be repeated), and therefore doesn't belong in a science class. It is funny to see creationists, when confronted with Scientology or the Flying Spagetti Monster (which roughly teaches the same thing), to suddenly reverse their position on teaching creationism. Religion does deserve time in school, however, which you do a good job of pointing out, and it must be religions that actually affect our daily living, Christianity and Judaism, Islam, Greek/Roman Mythology, and maybe some others.
Stop saying it is a throw-away vote - it isn't. A single vote is statistically meaningless anyways, it doesn't matter who you vote for - it is about who the masses want (which is why voting, if you know who you are voting for, is still important).
Want to really throw away your vote? Vote for big government and 14-digit debt. Vote for the nanny state or the police state. Vote for the status quo. That is how you really throw away your vote.
We are not going change what people think it says unless we start acknowledging what the constitution actually says.
Teaching or establishing religion by government is unconstitutional. Teaching about religion is important however, and completely within the bounds of the constitution. Acknowledging religion is much different then establishing it. Religion, specifically Christianity, is firmly rooted in our history, and appears all over the place in modern day media.
Additionally, I am hard pressed to find any ruling regarding the teaching about religion (informational) as "unconstitutional".
Consumer protection != Freedom
Like it or not, net neutrality IS an infringement on freedom. I think all of the problems we have had thus far could be solved with existing legislation, there is need for new laws as of yet.
No, the first and only goal of any politician is to remain in power. The first role of government is to protect the citizen's rights. Naturally, making sure the government doesn't collapse is a prerequisite to this.
I'll accept off topic, I wasn't referring to TFA
If you are so sure the congress can't pass good laws, what makes you so confident in the supreme court, them taking their invisible pen to write new laws that clearly do not exist in any bill or the US Constitution.
It is the job of the courts to interpret laws, not write in what they think should be there. It is the job of Congress alone to regulate. I'll say this again: It is the job of congress to create the "living document" that people call it, not the courts.
They're fine with destroying the earth as long as they can save $0.20 a gallon on gas for the next year.
There are certain things that should not be up for vote by the people, and the environment is probably at the top of that list.
I completely agree with your first two points, but I have to call you on this one: It wouldn't be "destroying the Earth," at least not nearly as much we are destroying it some other ways, there is plenty of land that wouldn't be touched. The estimate I heard was less then 1%. If you are afraid we might go over that number, you can sell the rights to only portions to ensure this. If you environmentalists are still afraid, buy the land yourself and protect it, there is no problem with that.Another thing that should not be up to the people to vote for is money: In any democracy, you are going to succeed until the voters realize they can vote themselves "free" money. Guess what, that money isn't free, it comes out of the tax payers pocket. If you print it, the value is deflated, and the working class that is the last to receive the new money is hurt greatly. Either way it is lose-lose.
Tech:
I, Cringley http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/rss2.xml
Freedom to Tinker http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?feed=rss2
Freenode staffblog http://blog.freenode.net/?feed=rss2
Gentoo Monthly Newsletter http://www.gentoo.org/news/en/gwn/rss.xml
Xaprb (MySQL) http://www.xaprb.com/blog/feed/atom/
Games:
Cruise Elroy ("Intelligent discussion of video games") http://cruiseelroy.net/feed/
Jonathan Drain's D20 Source http://d20.jonnydigital.com/feed
Socratic Design http://socratesrpg.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default
Stephen's Weblog (NDS homebrew) http://blog.akkit.org/feed/
StupidRanger http://feeds.feedburner.com/Stupidrangercom
Zero Punctuation http://www.escapistmagazine.com/rss/articles/editorials/zeropunctuation
Zelda Reorchestrated http://www.zreomusic.com/feed/
Used to read The Escapist, quite enjoying the magazine format, but seven or so articles all on the same day each week became too much (once a month please!). The format has changed since then, it just isn't the same.
And the Comics:
xkcd comic & blag
Penny Arcade
and no feed, but 8-bit Theater
And a number of various personal feeds
Slashdot I just check every few hours, I can be assured there is going to be a new article to read
What do we need a new laws for? Most of the existing problems, false advertising or anti-competitive behavior, could be solved with existing laws, if the right people would bother using them. If and only if those attempts fail, will we need new laws.
If all else fails, we simply need competition, look at what Version FiOS has done.