The 3rd party candidates already had their own debate. Didn't you notice? (Don't feel bad, not many did.) You can find some info (with links) at Liberty Rally. (Oh, and if you're a big Nader fan, did you know that he didn't even bother to show up when he had the chance?)
/. crew, please listen to this. It applies to any interview. We wouldn't mind a little judicious editing of the submitted questions in order to reduce the redundancy and bring up the quality of the interview overall. Combine the DMCA questions (in this case) into one so that we can ask more questions.
Real slavery is when your life means nothing, and can be disposed of at a whim without remorse. So who's the slave: a girl wanting an abortion or the unborn child inside her?
"With great power comes great responsibility." Men and women share the power to create a new life. They also share the great responsibility of raising the child that is the consequence of their actions. If you're not prepared for the consequences, refrain from the actions.
As dboyles said, parents have the right and duty to keep abreast of what their children are doing. It's called parenting.
Are you on the ballot in enough states to make it possible to win the election (270 electoral votes)? That one is simple enough, and makes sense. If you really have no chance of winning, why debate? I think everyone agrees on this one.
Are you one of the top 6 candidates in at least 3 of 5 independent polls? This one I am flexible with. The point is to have a cut-off at some number higher than 3. (I thought 6 was nice.) Why didn't I just say "higher than 2"? Because a popular 3rd party candidate (like Perot) can manage to get in even on current criteria. There are more voices to be heard.
I would like to see more political stories. I would love to see Slashdot used as a mobilization force for the geek voters of the world.
The problem is that there is no such voting bloc. There is no such thing as the "techie vote". I've noticed that a lot of the/. crowd seems to lean Libertarian or Green. Personally, I lean Constitutionalist, which is a totally different (though not necessarily completely opposite) direction. "Tech" isn't a fundamental issue that bonds people together. Political motivations always have been and always will be shaped mostly by two things: 1) what you think about a person's relationship to God, and 2) what you think about a person's relationships to other people. How you feel about the nature of those two fundamental kinds of relationships will pretty much determine your political stance. Tech is just a tool. Life is still about relationships to others.
About the only commonality you'll find among geeks (like the/. crowd) is that they're disaffected by the current system. We're big into 3rd parties, and being the active minority voice. That's a good thing, if for no other reason than it keeps the big guys on their toes — at least a little more than otherwise.
If you want politics, there are other good places for that. I don't want Slashdot to turn into a "catch all" board for anything that happens across CmdrTaco's brain after eating too many bean burritos. Keep it limited to tech-oriented issues. I'll go to Liberty Rally (or my own board once I set it up) to discuss politics and freedom.
I first commented on this at MacSlash where the article's been up since this morning, but maybe there will be more answers here. How painless will it be to install OS X over OS 8? The story only mentions installing over OS 9.
The only fault the Apple menu has is that it's not obviously a menu to the novice Mac user. (And once you grasp the idea that the bar across the top of the screen is full of menus, it's not too big a leap to think that everything is a menu, not just the text things.)
If users are used to putting aliases on the desktop, they probably came from the Windoze world where there wasn't anywhere as convenient as the Apple menu for putting aliases. (Don't even mention the Start menu. It's been around for 5 years. The Apple menu's been around for 15.) I hate a cluttered desktop. I use it only for work in progress currently - as soon as I'm done with it it's filed away again. If it was chock full of this, that, and the other thing, like application and document shortcuts I often see Windows users have, I'd go crazy.
And how is System Folder:Apple Menu Items less intuitive than Windows\Start Menu? Man, I haven't done a MacOS install in a while, but isn't "Apple Menu Items" one of the items in the Apple menu? That's just as easy to find as the Windows equivalent.
So you think your candidate is "worthy" to rob me of my money? Explain to me again why anyone should be compelled by law to finance a political campaign he is ideologically opposed to?
Not for me, no thanks. I'll vote for the Constitution Party. Even if it qualified for matching funds it would turn them down. Your tax money isn't meant to be used as campaign financing, and neither is mine.
(As far back as May the CP has been ahead of the Reform and Green parties in getting ballot access, yet the media continues to ignore them. Why is that?)
how people's views actually line up with the candidates (ie, Nader is really "out there"), or
how people are guessing other people will vote (ie, nobody else is so I won't either)?
That's what it comes down to. If everyone supported who they really thought the best candidate was, US politics would be much more interesting. As it is we have a nation full of sheep that follow the flock.
Vote for who you want to, and encourage others to do the same. Convince them of the stupidity of what you call "strategic voting". The presidency is not about being the "least objectionable", it's about being the guy that the most people think can do the best job.
As soon as you start voting for politics rather than principle you've already started to lose.
For what it's worth, I've been told the same things about supporting Phillips this November. "He'll never win! You're throwing your vote away! You might as well vote for Gore!" But I can't vote for Bush because I don't think he'd represent my views as well.
Shake up gov't. Vote third party. In a way, it's probably the best thing you can do for the US, regardless of which party you actually vote for.
I guess you're saying that Nader is to Democrats what Phillips is to Republicans. Very much the same point to make, with very much the same rationale.
I completely agree with everyone saying, "Vote for who you want for president, not for who you think will win." When did the presidency turn into the office of the least objectionable slimeball? Vote for who you really want!
I'm not saying they have to go by US law, per se. I'm just so accustomed to certain concepts like inalienable rights that I can't imagine a civilized country where they do not apply. (Maybe Australia is not a civilized country? *grin*)
OK I've got this figured out now. (See the above reply to mindstrm's post for explanation.) Thanks to everyone for the great discussion. (But I still think it's a wrong, stinky, rotten deal, even if it is legal. There's got to be a better solution.)
Ah, but an NDA is directly applicable to the situation. (Information you leak might help the competition and harm your employer.) I was under the assumption that the Olympics was about sports primarily, and thus thought that the IOC should limit itself to the sporting considerations. Now that you've opened my eyes to the fact that it's really about corporate greed, I understand perfectly.
Call me an optimist, idealist, whatever. It's been a great discussion, though. Thanks.
No, you're missing what I'm saying here. Let me post the two examples again.
"Sure you can vote...if your grand-daddy could in 1860."
"Sure we'll let you in here...but you better not vote next month, or something bad might happen to you."
In the first example, your rights are being restricted by an additional clause. You can't exercise your rights because of that.
In the second example, you can exercise your rights if you choose, but doing so harms you in some other way.
See the difference there? This case is an example of the latter. By exercising their rights, the Olympians are being harmed - barred from participation in the Games, or whatever. You say there's no "right" to participate in the Games, and that's true. You also don't have a "right" to be hired by an employer...yet how well would it go over if he said, "I can't hire you because you're Jewish." What? Don't you have freedom of religion? Yeah you do, and I don't think this employer would be in business after the lawsuit. Why is this any different?
The point is you cannot make exercise of rights the deciding factor in an unrelated situation. It's wrong. Threatening someone into going along with injustice is wrong. I think the IOC is fine with restricting drug use during the games, even if it is legal in some of the participating countries. This ensures a level playing field for all athletes, and that's within the scope of the Games. But what does speech have to do with fair competition? Nothing I can think of...so it shouldn't be restricted.
Then get the contract nullified. If it isn't right, change it.
If 50 Vietnamese immigrants signed a contract "agreeing" to be brought over here, work 16 hours days 7 days a week for $.50/hour, and sleep on the floor in a damp 5x10 room with no temp control, would you just throw your hands up and say, "Well, you agreed to it"??? Heck no, that "contract" would get nullified in court, and you'd probably go to jail for violating someone's rights.
In the US at least, the Constitution is the highest law, and you can't legally have someone agree to something contrary, contract or no. (IANAL)
But that's not right. Making exercise of rights dependent on some other condition, or making some action dependent on exercise of rights, is totally wrong!
"Sure you can vote...if your grand-daddy could in 1860."
"Sure we'll let you in here...but you better not vote next month, or something bad might happen to you."
I don't see how anybody could agree with doing something illegal. I own my own life, and making it impossible for me to share my own experiences is not right. This kind of stuff makes it impossible for Olympians to write an autobiography, doesn't it? "Hey, I bought Bruce Jenner's book, but chapter 12 just says, 'Deleted by agreement with IOC.' There isn't a single mention of him competing in the 1976 Games at all!" Feh. Whatever.
Next thing you know, the athletes will be forbidden to call home to talk to mom. "They might pass along news about the Games!" Again, feh. Whatever.
Do the athletes agree to have their freedom of speech limited in order to be Olympians? If not, then where does the IOC get off telling them they cannot continue writing an online diary, or putting their own personal pictures on their website, or whatever? I don't care if some corp "bought the exclusive rights" or whatever. If I'm a private (U.S.) citizen, I have freedom of speech!
If it were me, I'd continue to post my diary regardless. I never would have agreed to anything that said I couldn't. And I'd promote it with a logo that looked like 5 interlinking colored squares. Call it parody, if you will.
Yeah, with OS X just around the corner I have no incentive to upgrade to VPC3 at this time. I got VPC2 free when I bought this G3. I'm looking forward to running OS X on it within 6 months, and hope that Connectix has an OS X native version of VPC for me to upgrade to at that time.
Slashdot Mirror
The 3rd party candidates already had their own debate. Didn't you notice? (Don't feel bad, not many did.) You can find some info (with links) at Liberty Rally. (Oh, and if you're a big Nader fan, did you know that he didn't even bother to show up when he had the chance?)
Real slavery is when your life means nothing, and can be disposed of at a whim without remorse. So who's the slave: a girl wanting an abortion or the unborn child inside her?
"With great power comes great responsibility." Men and women share the power to create a new life. They also share the great responsibility of raising the child that is the consequence of their actions. If you're not prepared for the consequences, refrain from the actions.
As dboyles said, parents have the right and duty to keep abreast of what their children are doing. It's called parenting.
It is tyrranical. Vote Phillips on November 7 to restore a constitutionally limited gov't. You know Gore and Bush won't do it.
Two simple rules:
Phillips2000 is only the site for the current campaign. The Constitution Party site runs Apache/1.3.1.1 SSL/1.15 PHP/4.0b2.
The problem is that there is no such voting bloc. There is no such thing as the "techie vote". I've noticed that a lot of the /. crowd seems to lean Libertarian or Green. Personally, I lean Constitutionalist, which is a totally different (though not necessarily completely opposite) direction. "Tech" isn't a fundamental issue that bonds people together. Political motivations always have been and always will be shaped mostly by two things: 1) what you think about a person's relationship to God, and 2) what you think about a person's relationships to other people. How you feel about the nature of those two fundamental kinds of relationships will pretty much determine your political stance. Tech is just a tool. Life is still about relationships to others.
About the only commonality you'll find among geeks (like the /. crowd) is that they're disaffected by the current system. We're big into 3rd parties, and being the active minority voice. That's a good thing, if for no other reason than it keeps the big guys on their toes — at least a little more than otherwise.
If you want politics, there are other good places for that. I don't want Slashdot to turn into a "catch all" board for anything that happens across CmdrTaco's brain after eating too many bean burritos. Keep it limited to tech-oriented issues. I'll go to Liberty Rally (or my own board once I set it up) to discuss politics and freedom.
Posted with NN6PR3.
I first commented on this at MacSlash where the article's been up since this morning, but maybe there will be more answers here. How painless will it be to install OS X over OS 8? The story only mentions installing over OS 9.
The only fault the Apple menu has is that it's not obviously a menu to the novice Mac user. (And once you grasp the idea that the bar across the top of the screen is full of menus, it's not too big a leap to think that everything is a menu, not just the text things.)
If users are used to putting aliases on the desktop, they probably came from the Windoze world where there wasn't anywhere as convenient as the Apple menu for putting aliases. (Don't even mention the Start menu. It's been around for 5 years. The Apple menu's been around for 15.) I hate a cluttered desktop. I use it only for work in progress currently - as soon as I'm done with it it's filed away again. If it was chock full of this, that, and the other thing, like application and document shortcuts I often see Windows users have, I'd go crazy.
And how is System Folder:Apple Menu Items less intuitive than Windows\Start Menu? Man, I haven't done a MacOS install in a while, but isn't "Apple Menu Items" one of the items in the Apple menu? That's just as easy to find as the Windows equivalent.
1) So is Phillips.
2) Wrong, Phillips is doing that, too.
3) Hey, so is the Constitution Party.
4) Howard Phillips here, too.
And should I mention that the Constitution Party has been way ahead of both the Reform and Green parties in getting ballot access?
So you think your candidate is "worthy" to rob me of my money? Explain to me again why anyone should be compelled by law to finance a political campaign he is ideologically opposed to?
Not for me, no thanks. I'll vote for the Constitution Party. Even if it qualified for matching funds it would turn them down. Your tax money isn't meant to be used as campaign financing, and neither is mine.
(As far back as May the CP has been ahead of the Reform and Green parties in getting ballot access, yet the media continues to ignore them. Why is that?)
You just wanna be her pimp in the movie. Heh.
Is your "approximate showing" based on
That's what it comes down to. If everyone supported who they really thought the best candidate was, US politics would be much more interesting. As it is we have a nation full of sheep that follow the flock.
And the Repubmocrats think mutton tastes good.
Vote for who you want to, and encourage others to do the same. Convince them of the stupidity of what you call "strategic voting". The presidency is not about being the "least objectionable", it's about being the guy that the most people think can do the best job.
As soon as you start voting for politics rather than principle you've already started to lose.
For what it's worth, I've been told the same things about supporting Phillips this November. "He'll never win! You're throwing your vote away! You might as well vote for Gore!" But I can't vote for Bush because I don't think he'd represent my views as well.
Shake up gov't. Vote third party. In a way, it's probably the best thing you can do for the US, regardless of which party you actually vote for.
Very interesting.
I guess you're saying that Nader is to Democrats what Phillips is to Republicans. Very much the same point to make, with very much the same rationale.
I completely agree with everyone saying, "Vote for who you want for president, not for who you think will win." When did the presidency turn into the office of the least objectionable slimeball? Vote for who you really want!
I'm not saying they have to go by US law, per se. I'm just so accustomed to certain concepts like inalienable rights that I can't imagine a civilized country where they do not apply. (Maybe Australia is not a civilized country? *grin*)
OK I've got this figured out now. (See the above reply to mindstrm's post for explanation.) Thanks to everyone for the great discussion. (But I still think it's a wrong, stinky, rotten deal, even if it is legal. There's got to be a better solution.)
Ah, but an NDA is directly applicable to the situation. (Information you leak might help the competition and harm your employer.) I was under the assumption that the Olympics was about sports primarily, and thus thought that the IOC should limit itself to the sporting considerations. Now that you've opened my eyes to the fact that it's really about corporate greed, I understand perfectly.
Call me an optimist, idealist, whatever. It's been a great discussion, though. Thanks.
No, you're missing what I'm saying here. Let me post the two examples again.
In the first example, your rights are being restricted by an additional clause. You can't exercise your rights because of that.
In the second example, you can exercise your rights if you choose, but doing so harms you in some other way.
See the difference there? This case is an example of the latter. By exercising their rights, the Olympians are being harmed - barred from participation in the Games, or whatever. You say there's no "right" to participate in the Games, and that's true. You also don't have a "right" to be hired by an employer...yet how well would it go over if he said, "I can't hire you because you're Jewish." What? Don't you have freedom of religion? Yeah you do, and I don't think this employer would be in business after the lawsuit. Why is this any different?
The point is you cannot make exercise of rights the deciding factor in an unrelated situation. It's wrong. Threatening someone into going along with injustice is wrong. I think the IOC is fine with restricting drug use during the games, even if it is legal in some of the participating countries. This ensures a level playing field for all athletes, and that's within the scope of the Games. But what does speech have to do with fair competition? Nothing I can think of...so it shouldn't be restricted.
Then get the contract nullified. If it isn't right, change it.
If 50 Vietnamese immigrants signed a contract "agreeing" to be brought over here, work 16 hours days 7 days a week for $.50/hour, and sleep on the floor in a damp 5x10 room with no temp control, would you just throw your hands up and say, "Well, you agreed to it"??? Heck no, that "contract" would get nullified in court, and you'd probably go to jail for violating someone's rights.
In the US at least, the Constitution is the highest law, and you can't legally have someone agree to something contrary, contract or no. (IANAL)
But that's not right. Making exercise of rights dependent on some other condition, or making some action dependent on exercise of rights, is totally wrong!
This is wrong, wrong, wrong!
I don't see how anybody could agree with doing something illegal. I own my own life, and making it impossible for me to share my own experiences is not right. This kind of stuff makes it impossible for Olympians to write an autobiography, doesn't it? "Hey, I bought Bruce Jenner's book, but chapter 12 just says, 'Deleted by agreement with IOC.' There isn't a single mention of him competing in the 1976 Games at all!" Feh. Whatever.
Next thing you know, the athletes will be forbidden to call home to talk to mom. "They might pass along news about the Games!" Again, feh. Whatever.
Do the athletes agree to have their freedom of speech limited in order to be Olympians? If not, then where does the IOC get off telling them they cannot continue writing an online diary, or putting their own personal pictures on their website, or whatever? I don't care if some corp "bought the exclusive rights" or whatever. If I'm a private (U.S.) citizen, I have freedom of speech!
If it were me, I'd continue to post my diary regardless. I never would have agreed to anything that said I couldn't. And I'd promote it with a logo that looked like 5 interlinking colored squares. Call it parody, if you will.
Someone please mod this troll down. Thanks.
Why is that hypocritical? Is calling yourself a "great programmer" and yet attending evening classes at the local U being hypocritical?
Geez, nobody's perfect. Especially in the morality area. If we were perfect, there wouldn't be the notion of sin, or even a word for it.
Yeah, with OS X just around the corner I have no incentive to upgrade to VPC3 at this time. I got VPC2 free when I bought this G3. I'm looking forward to running OS X on it within 6 months, and hope that Connectix has an OS X native version of VPC for me to upgrade to at that time.