"Rather than let the thing burn up in the atmosphere they have to prove that they are willing and able to blow stuff up and leave earth orbit even more polluted."
George, old friend, please tell me you didn't ruin another set of classic American movies. Sean Connery turning down his role I hope is not as telling as it seems.
The answer for every little squabble is NOT to introduce new legislation. If Comcast continues to punish customers, it is the opportunity for other ISPs to step in. Let the free market punish them back.
Unless it is a case of a monopoly that has spun out of control, the free market is a better solution than government intervention.
"This confirms to me that my president and his administration are just incompetent."
Just proves you have no clue what you are talking about. Historically, any civilization that ceases to continue research in national defense has crumbled. Our government's #1 role is to fund national defense, some believe it should be the only role.
This research by itself protects this country. We are so far ahead than everyone else that terrorism is the only way anyone can touch us. This research keeps us here.
"There is no hope for science funding in the emergency stimulus bill"
You completely miss the point of cutting taxes. More money in the pockets of American citizens = more money spent in the free market = higher profit margins for all business. This profit will directly impact money spent on R&D.
Simple lesson on why lower taxes and smaller government is the answer to nearly every economic issue we face.
"1. Some research is so basic that there's no near-term mass-market application."
So you want a federal government to fund science that has no application for the masses? Sounds like something that benefits the few rather than the many, which is better done in the private sector. I don't want my tax dollars at work for something that benefits almost no one.
"2. If the research can't become a profit center, it's dropped. This is already happening in the now-privatized University R&D and it happened long, long ago in business."
Right down the road from me the University of Illinois is building a new $300,000,000 supercomputer funded by private donations, including my own. If the University is good enough, it will have the funding. Free market determines this.
"3. Most countries have some kind of nationalized R&D AND economic planning to sell the R&D. This model appears gets about the same results as the looser American style."
So you want to compare the number of scientific discoveries and new useful products developed by foreign governments compared to private companies within the United States? Are you crazy?
"4. Corporate R&D is mostly stealing ideas from someone else who cannot afford litigation."
Corporate R&D is buying ideas, not stealing. While our patent system needs work, it does have a purpose.
Scientific research is much better suited for the private sector*. Our free market is the answer.
Example. Business case A is presented by a private corporation. Private funding is invested, research is done, and a product is developed. That product is then sold on the free market competing against other similar products.
If a technology is a waste of time to research, no one would invest. If it is meaningful, you won't have trouble at all finding investors.
All a large government does is muck things up. The number of meaningful scientific discoveries made by large governments is very short.*
* National defense is the exception to the rule. Our government's primary responsibility is to defend its citizens.
9/11 was being planned while Clinton was in office. It was his destruction of our military that gave the terrorists an opportunity to strike. How many attacks anywhere near 9/11 have happened on our soil since?
This is the very reason we have a Republic, not a pure democracy.
Example: You are hiding in a secret basement with a few dozen of your closest friends and relatives. A baby starts crying as your enemy is searching the rooms above. What do you do?
If you hesitated answering, you shouldn't run a country. The answer isn't popular and sure as hell wouldn't be the view of the public.
Yes, and I would vote for him a third time given these options. His strong and stubborn leadership, while offensive to most, I deep down believe is what this country needed after 9/11. I don't agree with all of his policies, particularly the spending that has taken place over the last 8 years, but this country is much better off than it could have been with Gore or Kerry at the helm.
This isn't the Oscars, it is a presidential election. Someone "inspiring" you is the absolute worst reason to vote for them. Typically "inspiring" people tell you what you want to hear to win your vote.
How inspired will you feel when he takes money out of your pocket and ruins the health care system by socializing it? Actions matter, not words.
I've read it cover to cover a few times over. In my private time I debate issues publically in compeitions to enhance my skills of public speaking and persuasion.
While it was a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11, I would say about 80% of it was modernizing our national defense policies. It makes no sense that the United States has more power to investigate drug dealers than terrorists.
Example. Terrorists today often purchase pre-paid cell phones. Our old law required the United States to obtain wire taps on each individual phone, losing very precious time obtaining warrants on the same person over and over. Wire taps now extend to every cell phone a terrorist may purchase.
If this doesn't make sense to you, then I don't know what will. Many parts of the PATRIOT ACT do go too far, and many of those parts have been declared unconstitutional or have expired.
I emplore you, please do more research before buying into the media bias that this legislation was all evil.
"Q. A plane with Huckabee, McCain, and Romney crashes. Who's saved?"
This would mean either Hillary or Obama would win, which means every individual in this country loses. Both of them think they can spend your money better than you and both think they can make decisions on your health better than you.
"Yeah, because "No Child Left Behind" is working _so_ well. Okay, I guess it is working well, in turning children into fact spewing test takers with little to no capacity to manipulate or assimilate information outside the confines of a multiple choice test."
How many children have you spoke to lately to make this observation?
The problem with our education system anyway is that the government controls it. Education should be in the private sector with government funding from a voucher standpoint.
Can someone explain to me the real differences in these candidates? I've been following the primaries and I still can't find one issue where they actually differ.
Best description of Ron Paul I've heard: Some things he says make a lot of sense, some things he says scare the hell out of me. He is way too radical to become president. He is also very weak on Iraq and national defense, which is scary because national defense is about the only thing our Government should do. Everything else should be private sector.
Fred Thompson was by far the best candidate in terms of his views on the issues. He still is the only candidate to share his opinions on everything, and he was the only candidate on either side that didn't switch his views just to win votes. He has believed the same things for years.
Huckabee raises taxes too much. Being a conservative means that you believe you spend money better than the government, and he doesn't believe this. No thanks.
Romney I like, but would never win a national election due to his faith. I'm an atheist, but I know a Mormon isn't going to win a national election any time soon. This is unfortunate because after Thompson I think he is the best candidate.
McCain is a senator, and I hate voting for legislators in a presidential election. This role does not allow you to demonstrate your leadership powers. Also legislators must become more moderate to appease the other side... I want a president who is going to have a clear stance on every issue.
Bottom line: I would rather have a president I disagree with on some issues but I know in my heart is strong and stubborn than someone who will change their views based on popular opinion. What is right isn't always popular, and what is popular isn't always right.
Honestly as long as anyone but Hillary wins I can still live on.
(By the way, one of the Democratic Senators the computer placed into the Republican party was Hillary Clinton.)
She is so far left wing it makes many democrats cry.
Weapons like these insure our safety against other countries. China may have more men in their army than we have in total population, but they won't be starting anything anytime soon.
WWIII is the war on terror. Smaller cells hidden among private citizens is the only way to survive. The amount of time passed without another 9/11 is a tribute to the fine men and women of our military and a tribute to many of those in charge of this country.
I've played all of them, and leaving off Mass Effect is a crime. The Witcher has a decent story but it takes a back seat to the hack'n'slash gameplay. In Mass Effect, the story is excellent and truly immersive.
In the words of Patriot Act protagonists: "if there is nothing to hide, there is no harm in looking"
I'm an advocate of many pieces of the PATRIOT ACT. Why? It was ridiculous previously that our law enforcement had more power to investigate drug dealers than terrorists.
Example. Drug dealers often use pre-paid cell phones and switch them on a regular basis, becoming nearly untraceable. Due to beauracracy, law enforcement would need a separate warrant for each phone. Because of this law enforcement can now recieve a warrant for wiretaps on all phones a drug dealer uses, even if he hasn't purchases them yet. PATRIOT ACT extended this to drug dealers.
I recommend everyone against the PATRIOT ACT to read it, front to back, thoroughly. Most of it plain and simple makes sense, and many of the over-reaching laws have not been renewed or already been declared unconstitutional.
Plain and simple this legislation moved our country into the 21st century.
Slashdot Mirror
This isolationist attitude would eventually lead to our demise.
"Rather than let the thing burn up in the atmosphere they have to prove that they are willing and able to blow stuff up and leave earth orbit even more polluted."
Wonder how long till Al Gore's next book?
George, old friend, please tell me you didn't ruin another set of classic American movies. Sean Connery turning down his role I hope is not as telling as it seems.
Mod parent up.
The answer for every little squabble is NOT to introduce new legislation. If Comcast continues to punish customers, it is the opportunity for other ISPs to step in. Let the free market punish them back.
Unless it is a case of a monopoly that has spun out of control, the free market is a better solution than government intervention.
"This confirms to me that my president and his administration are just incompetent."
Just proves you have no clue what you are talking about. Historically, any civilization that ceases to continue research in national defense has crumbled. Our government's #1 role is to fund national defense, some believe it should be the only role.
This research by itself protects this country. We are so far ahead than everyone else that terrorism is the only way anyone can touch us. This research keeps us here.
"There is no hope for science funding in the emergency stimulus bill"
You completely miss the point of cutting taxes. More money in the pockets of American citizens = more money spent in the free market = higher profit margins for all business. This profit will directly impact money spent on R&D.
Simple lesson on why lower taxes and smaller government is the answer to nearly every economic issue we face.
"1. Some research is so basic that there's no near-term mass-market application."
So you want a federal government to fund science that has no application for the masses? Sounds like something that benefits the few rather than the many, which is better done in the private sector. I don't want my tax dollars at work for something that benefits almost no one. "2. If the research can't become a profit center, it's dropped. This is already happening in the now-privatized University R&D and it happened long, long ago in business."
Right down the road from me the University of Illinois is building a new $300,000,000 supercomputer funded by private donations, including my own. If the University is good enough, it will have the funding. Free market determines this. "3. Most countries have some kind of nationalized R&D AND economic planning to sell the R&D. This model appears gets about the same results as the looser American style."
So you want to compare the number of scientific discoveries and new useful products developed by foreign governments compared to private companies within the United States? Are you crazy? "4. Corporate R&D is mostly stealing ideas from someone else who cannot afford litigation."
Corporate R&D is buying ideas, not stealing. While our patent system needs work, it does have a purpose.
What kind of argument is that? We don't have time machines either, the philosophy of capitalism is not at fault.
My counter-argument would be that free-market capitalism has a better chance of discovering a cure for cancer than a government.
So our answer? Give the corporations researching these cures tax rebates.
Scientific research is much better suited for the private sector*. Our free market is the answer.
Example. Business case A is presented by a private corporation. Private funding is invested, research is done, and a product is developed. That product is then sold on the free market competing against other similar products.
If a technology is a waste of time to research, no one would invest. If it is meaningful, you won't have trouble at all finding investors.
All a large government does is muck things up. The number of meaningful scientific discoveries made by large governments is very short.*
* National defense is the exception to the rule. Our government's primary responsibility is to defend its citizens.
9/11 was being planned while Clinton was in office. It was his destruction of our military that gave the terrorists an opportunity to strike. How many attacks anywhere near 9/11 have happened on our soil since?
This is the very reason we have a Republic, not a pure democracy.
Example: You are hiding in a secret basement with a few dozen of your closest friends and relatives. A baby starts crying as your enemy is searching the rooms above. What do you do?
If you hesitated answering, you shouldn't run a country. The answer isn't popular and sure as hell wouldn't be the view of the public.
"You realize you just described G.W. B. right?"
Yes, and I would vote for him a third time given these options. His strong and stubborn leadership, while offensive to most, I deep down believe is what this country needed after 9/11. I don't agree with all of his policies, particularly the spending that has taken place over the last 8 years, but this country is much better off than it could have been with Gore or Kerry at the helm.
This isn't the Oscars, it is a presidential election. Someone "inspiring" you is the absolute worst reason to vote for them. Typically "inspiring" people tell you what you want to hear to win your vote.
How inspired will you feel when he takes money out of your pocket and ruins the health care system by socializing it? Actions matter, not words.
Because both Hunter and Paul have the same chance of winning.
I've read it cover to cover a few times over. In my private time I debate issues publically in compeitions to enhance my skills of public speaking and persuasion.
While it was a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11, I would say about 80% of it was modernizing our national defense policies. It makes no sense that the United States has more power to investigate drug dealers than terrorists.
Example. Terrorists today often purchase pre-paid cell phones. Our old law required the United States to obtain wire taps on each individual phone, losing very precious time obtaining warrants on the same person over and over. Wire taps now extend to every cell phone a terrorist may purchase.
If this doesn't make sense to you, then I don't know what will. Many parts of the PATRIOT ACT do go too far, and many of those parts have been declared unconstitutional or have expired.
I emplore you, please do more research before buying into the media bias that this legislation was all evil.
"Q. A plane with Huckabee, McCain, and Romney crashes. Who's saved?"
This would mean either Hillary or Obama would win, which means every individual in this country loses. Both of them think they can spend your money better than you and both think they can make decisions on your health better than you.
"Yeah, because "No Child Left Behind" is working _so_ well. Okay, I guess it is working well, in turning children into fact spewing test takers with little to no capacity to manipulate or assimilate information outside the confines of a multiple choice test."
How many children have you spoke to lately to make this observation?
The problem with our education system anyway is that the government controls it. Education should be in the private sector with government funding from a voucher standpoint.
Can someone explain to me the real differences in these candidates? I've been following the primaries and I still can't find one issue where they actually differ.
Best description of Ron Paul I've heard: Some things he says make a lot of sense, some things he says scare the hell out of me. He is way too radical to become president. He is also very weak on Iraq and national defense, which is scary because national defense is about the only thing our Government should do. Everything else should be private sector.
Fred Thompson was by far the best candidate in terms of his views on the issues. He still is the only candidate to share his opinions on everything, and he was the only candidate on either side that didn't switch his views just to win votes. He has believed the same things for years.
Huckabee raises taxes too much. Being a conservative means that you believe you spend money better than the government, and he doesn't believe this. No thanks.
Romney I like, but would never win a national election due to his faith. I'm an atheist, but I know a Mormon isn't going to win a national election any time soon. This is unfortunate because after Thompson I think he is the best candidate.
McCain is a senator, and I hate voting for legislators in a presidential election. This role does not allow you to demonstrate your leadership powers. Also legislators must become more moderate to appease the other side... I want a president who is going to have a clear stance on every issue.
Bottom line: I would rather have a president I disagree with on some issues but I know in my heart is strong and stubborn than someone who will change their views based on popular opinion. What is right isn't always popular, and what is popular isn't always right.
Honestly as long as anyone but Hillary wins I can still live on.
(By the way, one of the Democratic Senators the computer placed into the Republican party was Hillary Clinton.)
She is so far left wing it makes many democrats cry.
We are currently fighting WWIII.
Weapons like these insure our safety against other countries. China may have more men in their army than we have in total population, but they won't be starting anything anytime soon.
WWIII is the war on terror. Smaller cells hidden among private citizens is the only way to survive. The amount of time passed without another 9/11 is a tribute to the fine men and women of our military and a tribute to many of those in charge of this country.
What do you expect, Osama to show up in a neutral location with Car_Bomber_v1.exe ready to spar?
I've played all of them, and leaving off Mass Effect is a crime. The Witcher has a decent story but it takes a back seat to the hack'n'slash gameplay. In Mass Effect, the story is excellent and truly immersive.
Hillary hasn't won yet.
In the words of Patriot Act protagonists: "if there is nothing to hide, there is no harm in looking"
I'm an advocate of many pieces of the PATRIOT ACT. Why? It was ridiculous previously that our law enforcement had more power to investigate drug dealers than terrorists.
Example. Drug dealers often use pre-paid cell phones and switch them on a regular basis, becoming nearly untraceable. Due to beauracracy, law enforcement would need a separate warrant for each phone. Because of this law enforcement can now recieve a warrant for wiretaps on all phones a drug dealer uses, even if he hasn't purchases them yet. PATRIOT ACT extended this to drug dealers.
I recommend everyone against the PATRIOT ACT to read it, front to back, thoroughly. Most of it plain and simple makes sense, and many of the over-reaching laws have not been renewed or already been declared unconstitutional.
Plain and simple this legislation moved our country into the 21st century.