Simply saying "this is incorrect" and offering no citation or insight is... exactly the opposite of insight. More importantly, if you don't want a discussion, just don't reply. This is after all the Slashdot discussion system. Don't force me to resort to a uid match point out you have the highest uid of all the ancestors to this post. No, I won't do that. (jk, jk) Don't take any of this personally, please:-)
I am absolutely not decrying constitutional amendments. I am decrying the causes of supreme court decisions, it means either the supreme court read an invisible ink paragraph in the constitution, wrote a new law for congress, or congress overstepped their authority and passed the law before the necessary amendment (maybe something else too, but that should mostly be it). None of those cases should be necessary if we elected people who knew the limits on authority for each branch and position. That said we are not going to be electing good people any time soon, so more such checks and balances could be used to make sure everyone stays well within their limits. In a nutshell, these supreme court decisions are symptoms. We want to make the causes go away, while at the same time making these symptoms show through clearer.
Grandparent is correct. The Civil war was started over state's rights, not slavery (not directly at least, slavery was the key part of the state's rights issue). Lincoln made it a war directly about slavery only after the Emancipation Proclamation
Mod up! No one seems to understand that if the constitution disagrees with something, you can not just write legislation and hope it is never challenged, you must amend the constitution if you don't like it. There is this class of people who seem to think you can just pass any law you like, it is the supreme courts job exclusively to decide what is constitutional. This is immediately followed by everyone wondering why we suddenly have a huge executive branch and the PATRIOT act...
Yes I got the point. I really shouldn't have said anything about that point that I admit I have not spent as much time looking at. Now, not to say that the bill is useless, but major funded programs like Iraq or Social Security don't justify (relatively) smaller programs, especially when the existing system isn't broken. I haven't heard anything about a lack of care for our solders, I don't see what the big issue is.
Eek, I didn't intend to refer to Obama (but that is very clearly what I did). My intention was to focus on the job of the president, which to say is definitely not write your own laws and have your sock puppet congress to pass them, as has been done in the past (I do however feel that is exactly the wrong sort of thing Obama would do).
Leadership is a personality trait (you can still learn effective leadership) but that doesn't mean you automatically know how to run one type of system. That said, we could benefit from people who could bring in different leadership techniques. I think we could use more software engineers in congress to issue "release candidate" bills and poke holes in legislation.
I like what Linus says about Git (being my favorite SCM now): 'Like "What Would Jesus Do", but instead it is "What Would CVS Never, ever Do?" Luckily CVS has not rotted my brain enough to turn out a bad SCM' [or something like that].
At the same time, you have to know how the system works before you can jump in. Getting involved with government politics for a long while, then moving on to business leadership, then maybe a law firm, project management, other diverse positions, excel at each, then returning with a fresh set of ideas -and strong knowledge of what your authority is and is not- is perhaps the best way to go.
Yeah, I don't like Wal-Mart and Microsoft any more then the next guy, but it isn't governments job to decide who is tbe best source of money (profits, not trust abuse). Almost by definition, taxes on cooperations are taxes on the consumer. That hurts the market, and the economy. This is true regardless of how much they have in the banks.
Keeping the war going while refusing to extend extra benefits to those who go and fight?
I don't know if you are referring to a specific bill, but troops already get plenty of benefits, do we really want government spending even more? Yeah, "cut spending" is an easy thing to say, until you look at your choices to cut. No matter what you go with, you are going to be called names by someone who is benefiting from the funding.
Having an OK message but using words in such a way that make it sound like they are a bumbling fool?
So McCain doesn't have a way with words like Obama's speech writers do. To be honest I have not seen this, the times I bothered to listen to him speak and respond to questions, he was painfully honest did not act like the bumbling fool you make him to be.
The only thing that sounds like third term to me is the power he wants, but then again, both candidates want power, and want to expand the authority and scope of government in some negative way.
How many past presidents have been representatives or senators so far? Two. It is the whole experience thing.
It is the issues that GWB failed in. Not the experience. We voted him in on education and social security and got procrastination from congress (especially this second term) and a greatly expanded executive branch.
Honestly I think people need to learn how to lead. It isn't your job as president to enforce your beliefs on government, it is your job to keep things running. That is your constitutionally given authority. People with good ideas and those that can identify the source of the problem need to be our senators. Those that can without personal bias interpret the meaning of the constitution and laws, and not create laws or read invisible lines because they don't exist, need to be our judges.
Our executive branch needs the leaders with experience to... lead. That just does not come with a single term in the senate.
It seems to me like the editors actually read the article this time--"It is being tested by the FAA for certification in propeller aircraft." Cringly, if you didn't notice from most all of the paragraphs about them, hints at a future of the fuel with cars. The summary is paraphrased at worst.
I hope that SwiftFuel is a success. I hope it fulfills all Mary Rusek's claims. But if SwiftFuel doesn't succeed, I also hope that isn't because entrenched oil interests kill it. Yet I don't think many of us would be surprised if that is exactly what happens.
Oil companies need to learn to horizontally integrate. If there is something that makes money, start capitalizing on it, don't smother it. We learned from the electric car, don't you lose business that way? Or is it just some evil price fixing conspiracy to make their 5% profits worth more?
Alright, lets analyze this: He very clearly had the number 57 out of 58 in his mind. In addition, he would not visit Hawii and Alaska. So must is talking about 57 out of 60 of something else. I still can't figure out what he meant, assuming he got only the word "states" wrong. Interestingly, later on in the day aide cut short his just as cryptic clarification to the media. Also interestingly, no one seems to be calling the "century of war" quote by McCain a mistake, despite a pretty clear clarification, but treating it entirely like a doomsday scenario. I am getting off my larger point: talk are weak. One or two or even a dozen isolated incidents are not bad thing (patterns of flip-flopping or flat out inconstancy, or a lack of an educated position, that does worry me). Track record speaks louder, and both candidates have a pretty strong record against freedom, if a short or long one.
That is what I thought too. I was hard pressed to find seven US Territories, incorporated or otherwise. Not to mention that they have the same number of electoral votes as other countries and provinces: zero. My point to great-grandparent is do not go basing candidates when you have no clue what you are saying, or why you are saying it.
And Obama is perfect? Fifty seven states? "Typical white person?" There are plenty more.
I can't believe I am defending either candidate, but at least when McCain is ignorant about something, he is honest about it. Obama just looks at you and says "well it's fair." If you are lucky.
No, it must be sexual in nature, period. Nude, even "full frontal" photos are allowed (if looked down upon in many regions of the globe). On the other side, very suggestive dancing of young, but fully clothed, girls has been ruled child porn by the courts in America.
Money by itself won't get a country out of poverty. It just doesn't work that way. Often times, even when a country does find an economic stimulus like oil or other natural resources, they start doing good, but after five or so years later end up even worse off then before. The one reason poverty in America (with respect to the rest of the world, not the definition that means "only one TV or car") is because of (what was) a well structured government with checks and balances, the type of government doesn't matter too much as long as you have that condition satisfied.
How many African countries have a democracy? Plenty. How many actually have seperate branches of government with restricted and delegated authority to each? Not as many.
How about Mexico? They have natural resources galore, up until a few years ago they were the number two provider of foreign oil to America, nearly tied with Saudi Arabia (both well below Canada), they have coast line, tourism, and no reason to be anything short of successful, but the economy is in shambles. Much of it can be blamed on the corruption, brought about as an effect of unstructured government.
And you can thank American innovation and capitalism for bringing the vast majority of cancer treatments that wouldn't exist otherwise.
Yes, the Republicans are wrong about many of their neo-conservative ideas on spying and the like. Does that make the Democrats automatically correct? Both parties have done a wonderful job of making themselves look stupid. Both parties thought we had to invade another country that really had no business with us whatsoever (Iraq purposefully did try to look like they had weapons, but that was to keep off Iran). Both parties encourage some sort of unnecessary restriction of your personal rights or freedoms, be it social, economic, or individual freedoms.
Regarding your sig, the last thing McCain wants is a world war in the Middle East. The idea is you prevent things from getting worse by stabilizing Iraq, which speaking of which I have not heard as many negative things from the country recently. McCain actually has to explain himself to look stupid, all Obama has to do is open his mouth. Fifty seven states? Raise the capital gains tax, because "it's the fair thing to do?!?" How do you not know the ideals of your own pastor over twenty years? These may be over-exploited accidents, but you can not just ignore it, they are all signs pointing to ignorance. I have heard all of those quotes in context, and maybe if you actually listened to the whole "century" argument and additional explanation maybe it would make more sense.
Leave it to Slashdot to turn software into politics.
This could be anywhere from just works to very effective, but a distributed version control system, so copied can be kept on multiple systems easily, and something that can check the integrity of files. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_revision_control_software seems interesting, look for distributed and atomic commits, and signed tags (though this by itself doesn't guarantee it catches file errors right away).
I use and love Git, and though Windows support is there, it is questionable I have heard.
Adding or saving changes is "git add [file]" then "git commit", checking files for any changes is "git status", checking the integrity of the stored data history is "git fsck", pushing your changes to a remote backup location is "git push" .
Mercurial and Monotone do similar things (if differently or not as well), but have better Windows support.
If there is any reason not to use a version system, it is the complexity and abundance of features that are not needed for something this simple.
I wasn't aware the US government ever sized property. There is a completely different concept, which could be confused with seizing land, and it's called eminent domain. You have to be compensated fair value, and whoever proposed it has to take the PR hit. China can take your land too. Guess which country allows you to at least challenge it?
It depends on which cases you would have a reasonable expectation of privacy with. You have reasonable expectation of privacy if you cover it up, or if you are talking quietly. Standing in public outside for anyone to photograph is no reasonable expectation. Walking around naked has nothing to do with privacy, instead some places have "indecent exposure" laws. Those places that don't will use private property (e.g. a mall can ask you to leave if they don't like what you are wearing) or public nuisance (streaking or purposeful disruption) laws where they apply.
And suggest that government take over the cost of SMS? When was the last time they did anything right? A much more effective practice would be to send it all to some CEO.
I don't know if anyone mentioned this yet, but compare the Hubble dedicated data pipe (kinda) to the SMS service that millions of people want to use, and tell me why supply and demand should not apply.
If prices are too high, we need to either increase the width of the data pipe (which isn't really the problem), or increase the supply of reliable cell providers (which is).
Exactly. Think about how RMS sees this though: You take our programs that we wrote, wrap them all around the Linux kernel, and get GNU/Linux.
Personally I don't think it should be called Linux at all, you can have a free software OS without Linux, or without GNU, or both. What do you call it then?
For legal purposes (at least in the US legal system), you are innocent until you are declared guilty at a fair trial. After that you are guilty until pronounced innocent, at which point you can not be tried again.
We are talking about the legal definition, not if the fact he is now guilty is correct or not.
Slashdot Mirror
Simply saying "this is incorrect" and offering no citation or insight is... exactly the opposite of insight. :-)
More importantly, if you don't want a discussion, just don't reply. This is after all the Slashdot discussion system. Don't force me to resort to a uid match point out you have the highest uid of all the ancestors to this post. No, I won't do that. (jk, jk)
Don't take any of this personally, please
I am absolutely not decrying constitutional amendments. I am decrying the causes of supreme court decisions, it means either the supreme court read an invisible ink paragraph in the constitution, wrote a new law for congress, or congress overstepped their authority and passed the law before the necessary amendment (maybe something else too, but that should mostly be it). None of those cases should be necessary if we elected people who knew the limits on authority for each branch and position. That said we are not going to be electing good people any time soon, so more such checks and balances could be used to make sure everyone stays well within their limits.
In a nutshell, these supreme court decisions are symptoms. We want to make the causes go away, while at the same time making these symptoms show through clearer.
Grandparent is correct. The Civil war was started over state's rights, not slavery (not directly at least, slavery was the key part of the state's rights issue). Lincoln made it a war directly about slavery only after the Emancipation Proclamation
Mod up! No one seems to understand that if the constitution disagrees with something, you can not just write legislation and hope it is never challenged, you must amend the constitution if you don't like it.
There is this class of people who seem to think you can just pass any law you like, it is the supreme courts job exclusively to decide what is constitutional. This is immediately followed by everyone wondering why we suddenly have a huge executive branch and the PATRIOT act...
Only as of recently, I think it started around the time conservatives forgot they stood for less government regulation and authority and not more.
Yes I got the point. I really shouldn't have said anything about that point that I admit I have not spent as much time looking at.
Now, not to say that the bill is useless, but major funded programs like Iraq or Social Security don't justify (relatively) smaller programs, especially when the existing system isn't broken. I haven't heard anything about a lack of care for our solders, I don't see what the big issue is.
No need to make us feel stupid. If I don't know as much as I know I should at least I am going to be honest about it.
:/
The massive amount of spending required for the bill still stands. It can be measured as a percentage of the Iraq war cost per year...
Eek, I didn't intend to refer to Obama (but that is very clearly what I did). My intention was to focus on the job of the president, which to say is definitely not write your own laws and have your sock puppet congress to pass them, as has been done in the past (I do however feel that is exactly the wrong sort of thing Obama would do).
Leadership is a personality trait (you can still learn effective leadership) but that doesn't mean you automatically know how to run one type of system. That said, we could benefit from people who could bring in different leadership techniques. I think we could use more software engineers in congress to issue "release candidate" bills and poke holes in legislation.
I like what Linus says about Git (being my favorite SCM now): 'Like "What Would Jesus Do", but instead it is "What Would CVS Never, ever Do?" Luckily CVS has not rotted my brain enough to turn out a bad SCM' [or something like that].
At the same time, you have to know how the system works before you can jump in. Getting involved with government politics for a long while, then moving on to business leadership, then maybe a law firm, project management, other diverse positions, excel at each, then returning with a fresh set of ideas -and strong knowledge of what your authority is and is not- is perhaps the best way to go.
The only thing that sounds like third term to me is the power he wants, but then again, both candidates want power, and want to expand the authority and scope of government in some negative way.
How many past presidents have been representatives or senators so far? Two. It is the whole experience thing.
It is the issues that GWB failed in. Not the experience. We voted him in on education and social security and got procrastination from congress (especially this second term) and a greatly expanded executive branch.
Honestly I think people need to learn how to lead. It isn't your job as president to enforce your beliefs on government, it is your job to keep things running. That is your constitutionally given authority. People with good ideas and those that can identify the source of the problem need to be our senators. Those that can without personal bias interpret the meaning of the constitution and laws, and not create laws or read invisible lines because they don't exist, need to be our judges.
Our executive branch needs the leaders with experience to... lead. That just does not come with a single term in the senate.
The largest headline on the page is Gitmo Bay Detainees Win Round at High Court.
You know, I hear Obama has an entire company dedicated to him too.
"Ticker: Obama lead on McCain growing in polls"
I thought so.
It seems to me like the editors actually read the article this time--"It is being tested by the FAA for certification in propeller aircraft." Cringly, if you didn't notice from most all of the paragraphs about them, hints at a future of the fuel with cars. The summary is paraphrased at worst.
Alright, lets analyze this:
He very clearly had the number 57 out of 58 in his mind. In addition, he would not visit Hawii and Alaska. So must is talking about 57 out of 60 of something else. I still can't figure out what he meant, assuming he got only the word "states" wrong.
Interestingly, later on in the day aide cut short his just as cryptic clarification to the media.
Also interestingly, no one seems to be calling the "century of war" quote by McCain a mistake, despite a pretty clear clarification, but treating it entirely like a doomsday scenario.
I am getting off my larger point: talk are weak. One or two or even a dozen isolated incidents are not bad thing (patterns of flip-flopping or flat out inconstancy, or a lack of an educated position, that does worry me). Track record speaks louder, and both candidates have a pretty strong record against freedom, if a short or long one.
That is what I thought too. I was hard pressed to find seven US Territories, incorporated or otherwise.
Not to mention that they have the same number of electoral votes as other countries and provinces: zero.
My point to great-grandparent is do not go basing candidates when you have no clue what you are saying, or why you are saying it.
And Obama is perfect?
Fifty seven states?
"Typical white person?"
There are plenty more.
I can't believe I am defending either candidate, but at least when McCain is ignorant about something, he is honest about it. Obama just looks at you and says "well it's fair." If you are lucky.
No, it must be sexual in nature, period. Nude, even "full frontal" photos are allowed (if looked down upon in many regions of the globe). On the other side, very suggestive dancing of young, but fully clothed, girls has been ruled child porn by the courts in America.
See, among other things, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudity#Nudity_and_children and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jock_Sturges
Money by itself won't get a country out of poverty. It just doesn't work that way. Often times, even when a country does find an economic stimulus like oil or other natural resources, they start doing good, but after five or so years later end up even worse off then before. The one reason poverty in America (with respect to the rest of the world, not the definition that means "only one TV or car") is because of (what was) a well structured government with checks and balances, the type of government doesn't matter too much as long as you have that condition satisfied.
How many African countries have a democracy? Plenty. How many actually have seperate branches of government with restricted and delegated authority to each? Not as many.
How about Mexico? They have natural resources galore, up until a few years ago they were the number two provider of foreign oil to America, nearly tied with Saudi Arabia (both well below Canada), they have coast line, tourism, and no reason to be anything short of successful, but the economy is in shambles. Much of it can be blamed on the corruption, brought about as an effect of unstructured government.
And you can thank American innovation and capitalism for bringing the vast majority of cancer treatments that wouldn't exist otherwise.
Yes, the Republicans are wrong about many of their neo-conservative ideas on spying and the like.
Does that make the Democrats automatically correct?
Both parties have done a wonderful job of making themselves look stupid. Both parties thought we had to invade another country that really had no business with us whatsoever (Iraq purposefully did try to look like they had weapons, but that was to keep off Iran). Both parties encourage some sort of unnecessary restriction of your personal rights or freedoms, be it social, economic, or individual freedoms.
Regarding your sig, the last thing McCain wants is a world war in the Middle East. The idea is you prevent things from getting worse by stabilizing Iraq, which speaking of which I have not heard as many negative things from the country recently. McCain actually has to explain himself to look stupid, all Obama has to do is open his mouth. Fifty seven states? Raise the capital gains tax, because "it's the fair thing to do?!?" How do you not know the ideals of your own pastor over twenty years? These may be over-exploited accidents, but you can not just ignore it, they are all signs pointing to ignorance. I have heard all of those quotes in context, and maybe if you actually listened to the whole "century" argument and additional explanation maybe it would make more sense.
Leave it to Slashdot to turn software into politics.
This could be anywhere from just works to very effective, but a distributed version control system, so copied can be kept on multiple systems easily, and something that can check the integrity of files.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_revision_control_software seems interesting, look for distributed and atomic commits, and signed tags (though this by itself doesn't guarantee it catches file errors right away).
I use and love Git, and though Windows support is there, it is questionable I have heard.
Adding or saving changes is "git add [file]" then "git commit", checking files for any changes is "git status", checking the integrity of the stored data history is "git fsck", pushing your changes to a remote backup location is "git push" .
Mercurial and Monotone do similar things (if differently or not as well), but have better Windows support.
If there is any reason not to use a version system, it is the complexity and abundance of features that are not needed for something this simple.
I wasn't aware the US government ever sized property. There is a completely different concept, which could be confused with seizing land, and it's called eminent domain. You have to be compensated fair value, and whoever proposed it has to take the PR hit.
China can take your land too.
Guess which country allows you to at least challenge it?
It depends on which cases you would have a reasonable expectation of privacy with.
You have reasonable expectation of privacy if you cover it up, or if you are talking quietly. Standing in public outside for anyone to photograph is no reasonable expectation.
Walking around naked has nothing to do with privacy, instead some places have "indecent exposure" laws. Those places that don't will use private property (e.g. a mall can ask you to leave if they don't like what you are wearing) or public nuisance (streaking or purposeful disruption) laws where they apply.
And suggest that government take over the cost of SMS? When was the last time they did anything right? A much more effective practice would be to send it all to some CEO.
I don't know if anyone mentioned this yet, but compare the Hubble dedicated data pipe (kinda) to the SMS service that millions of people want to use, and tell me why supply and demand should not apply.
If prices are too high, we need to either increase the width of the data pipe (which isn't really the problem), or increase the supply of reliable cell providers (which is).
Exactly. Think about how RMS sees this though: You take our programs that we wrote, wrap them all around the Linux kernel, and get GNU/Linux.
Personally I don't think it should be called Linux at all, you can have a free software OS without Linux, or without GNU, or both. What do you call it then?
For legal purposes (at least in the US legal system), you are innocent until you are declared guilty at a fair trial. After that you are guilty until pronounced innocent, at which point you can not be tried again.
We are talking about the legal definition, not if the fact he is now guilty is correct or not.