You are completely wrong. Most blogs are just the current incarnation of personal websites run by ego-centric, know-it-all, wannabe journalists and cry-babies. Most of them just track back to some other equally lame blog. If you're lucky, you might be able to find the original source...which was probably a major news site.
Now, there are some legitimate news sites that have moved to a blog format, but that has nothing to do with blogging.
I consider a majority of blogs to be little more than shameless self-promotion. SPAM, if you will. As more and more people catch on to this, the less relevant they will become and they will join "guestbooks" in the great nothingness. Eventually people will stop updating their blogs because, face it, that's what happens. It's nothing more than a regurgitation of the early "personal" internet. It's a bit prettier and easier to maintain.
Because the Navy has its own mobile air fleet? One major reason is that flying/landing on an aircraft carrier is completely different from flying/landing on a normal runway.
The Army has planes, too. The Air Force doesn't have exclusive rights to flight. The branches all serve different purposes, but do have some overlapping capabilities.
My sister is part of an AWACS crew with the Air Force. My understanding is that both the Air Force and Navy have their own AWACS.
The entire premise is flawed because there is no such thing as overly hygienic. Sure, if you grow up in a sealed bubble, you will likely lack antibodies for certain things. However, you will have antibodies passed onto you from your mother.
We already know that every living thing develops certain immunities/resistance in specific environments. People in certain countries develop resistance to many indigenous parasites, while vistors become seriously ill.
If I do get sick, at least I'll live. More people die in developing countries from things we can easily remedy than the other way around.
This article is just more anti-western rhetoric suggesting that the west would be better off if we were dirtier and that we should apologize for being better off than someone else. We've already gone through our development and I'm thankful to have benefitted from it.
The studios need to retain consistency here. Obviously, all movies are the same price at the theater when they come out. There is no way to know which ones will do well. I can understand wanting a tiered download scheme. However, they have not done this with DVDs, so there is no precedent for this. A quick look at Best Buy shows all new-release DVDs of theatrical motion pictures to be 19.99, irrelevant of success.
I concede that 9.99 might be a little low for newly released DVDs if the current standard DVD price is 19.99. As long as downloads are kept below DVD retail price, I don't see a problem with new releases of successful movies being more than the new release of box-office bomb. It goes both ways, though. If they want tiered download pricing, they need to have tiered DVD box pricing as well. Otherwise they just come off as the greedy bastards that they are.
Amen! iTMS and iPod are separate entities having no dependence on the other. How hard is this to understand? I have an iPod and 99.9% of my music is NOT from iTMS. If I threw my iPod away, I could still buy all the music I want from iTMS and play it where ever I want. Sure, there's an extra step...so what? It's no different than downloading(legally) a movie, then having to burn it to a DVD for playback on a DVD player.
If anything, I'd like someone to force Apple to have better quality encoding on their downloads. The few albums I do have from iTMS sound awful. Not being able to re-download songs is a real turn-off as well. I don't think iTMS albums are worth $9.99.
Are you that ignorant? "Internet For All" is just code-name for another tax Europeans will have to pay for yet another substandard service provided by the government.
Europeans will be judged as a bunch of suckers that professed freedom while simultaneously giving that freedom away, tax by tax.
I, for one, welcome our new DotCom Bust 2.0 overlords! At least we can see this one coming.
I can't believe this needs to be pointed out...
on
Flying Faster Without ID
·
· Score: 2, Informative
But white people did not fly planes into the WTC and Pentagon. You can be sure that if they had, the ACLU wouldn't be standing up for the white people getting profiled at airports.
Of course, this doesn't mean their aren't white terrorists. Clearly, they exist and could strike at anytime.
Many people have made the comment that he had no problem because he was white. Although playing the race card is pretty ignorant, I see no mention of the race of the TSA workers that let this guy through so easily. For the white conspiracy to work, every TSA employee had to have been white.
I'll tell ya, my wife works for the government and most of our friends do as well. I grew up around government workers. Most of them hate the government, especially when the GOP is in control. The government would never get away with most of the conspiracies attributed to them. Yes, they routinely make bad "official" descisions, but they are rarely carried out in any effective manner. Most government workers have the "union" attitude. They go to work and do their job however they feel like, because it's impossible to get fired. If some TSA supervisor told a bunch of grumpy TSA peons to go profile certain types of people, I wouldn't count on them giving two squirts. If any of them thought there was some systemic conspiracy going on, they'd be on the phone to the media in a flash.
I know people want the government to be the bigbadevilsuper-entity, but it really isn't. When you see inside, it's amazing that we survive as a country at all. It would be amusing if it weren't so disturbing.
This post is nonsense. The government doesn't represent the end of your privacy. Being born has already ended your privacy. (Apologies to those not born). You trade your info in exchange for freedom, protection, and opportunity many can only dream of. You, however, are not obliged to live here. You have my explicit permission to leave and make room for those who know what real governmental abuse is like.
Umm...are we not a sovereign country? Are we not entitled to decide who we let into this country as well as the stipulations required for entry. We have the most relaxed immigration policies of any modern country. THERE IS NO NEED TO SNEAK IN.
We let people in and give them money to start businesses while people born here can't even get a decent primary education. We pay foreigners to attend our universities while most Americans are in debt up to their eyeballs for a basic 4-year degree and about to get royally screwed on student loan interest rates.
I'm tired of all the bleeding hearts that think we should let immigrant anarchy rule. If you're so anxious to let people in, let them come take over your home without your permission. Let's how welcoming you really are.
I'm also tired of a government that doesn't enforce it's own friggin immigration laws. We already gave millions of ILLEGAL ALIENS amnesty once and it did no good. The idea that we will give amnesty one again...in return for payment of fines and back taxes is beyond absurd.
1) Where is the incentive? Many illegals lead a perfectly fine life here. We don't enforce our immigration laws, nor will we ever do so. Why would they bother to come out of hiding and dish up some dough?
2) Who is going to collect said payments?
People say that we don't have the resources to round up and deport illegals. How in the heck can we collect anything from them?? Get real.
I understand the war on terror, but it's time for Bush to get his head out of his arse and stop worrying about poppycockery like gay marriage and start taking care of business. The Senate better get their sh*t together as well.
I don't see why people have such a hard time understanding the internet. It's similar to the global transporation system. There are many methods of transportation around the world: air, rail, water, roadways, and various combinations therewith. There is no singular authority controlling them, however, there are independent authorities that must work together to make transporation possible. Generally, like in the U.S, government is only a regulatory authority. In some countries, transporation mechanisms are actually state-owned.
In the U.S, roadways are "owned" by the state. The Eisenhower Interstate Highway System is subsidized by the federal government to promote interstate transporation. As a result, the federal government regulates interstate roadway travel. They routinely hold funding of this system hostage to strong-arm states into submission regarding various issues.
The various rail systems are owned by the private companies that built them. This is probably a clearer illustration of how the internet works. My guess is that you would have to pay to build a depot or stop somewhere along that rail. You would then have to pay another fee to run your own train on a given route. You may have to pay multiple companies if you need to travel on a section of railway owned by another company. In addition, you may have to pay additional charges based on the number of cars you pull AND the contents. All the while, nearly every aspect is regulated by local, state, and federal governments. Fun times.
I realize this is an oversimplification, but I don't see why people get so uppity about regulation and corporate control of the internet. Frankly, I'm surprised it's taken this long for the idea of a tiered system to come up. Now that the net has become ubiquitous in most of the free world, it was only a matter of time. I'm not saying it's good or bad; it doesn't really matter. Whether you like it or not, the current internet/web is a result of private enterprise and no one should expect to get it for free or unregulated.
Sometimes, I wish the whole thing would just die. If the net is tiered and Google has to pay a surcharge on traffic, you can bet your bottom dollar that Google will start charging you for searches. They will come up with some way to offset the cost. We all know who loses in the end.
Exactly. This so-called net-neutrality has nothing to do with free speech. What if all the telcos just shut down their pipes and there was no more internet? Does that deny you your freedom of speech? Of course not. Neither does charging whatever the hell they want, in whatever manner they want, to use their networks.
There is no need for government interference at this poinit. Let the telcos try to do this and see how many content providers succumb to it. Personally, the internet is not THAT important. We all got along just fine before it. Sure, it'd be a bit inconvient at first, but we'll all get over it.
Maybe I'm just burnt out on technology. I've just about had it with cell phones/blackberries and all the retards running around with their Borg-like bluetooth earpieces! I think I'm gonna start taking photos of people with those stupid things.
I agree. The story summary gets lost with the font and general crampiness. I would inject the story column from the runner up into the winner. I'd prefer the runner-up if the design didn't extend to the edge.
A complaint early on about the runner-up design was the fact that the right column sections do not function like those on the left. The sections on the right should be collapsable as well. I just discovered the the left-hand columns on the winner collapse. This is not obvious at all. It suffers the same inconsistency.
I think the best design would be a combo of the the winner and runner-up.
Apparently you missed the part where he invoked Columbine to threaten the school. Game Over.
As someone else mentioned, freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequence. If I am a tax payer sending my child to public school and a student of that school makes a veiled threat to the school, the school has a duty to remove that student from school and possibly file charges against him. If the school doesn't do it, the community should get involved and do it for them. This particular student obviously has issues and should be removed from the school immediately.
You're joking, right? The U.K is leading the charge in the elimination of privacy rights. Remember, George Orwell was English, not American. Show me a country with more freedom than the U.S and let them cast the first stone. I think the biggest problem in the U.S is that we take our liberty for granted. No one (or very few) born and raised here has ANY idea what real dictatorship, oppression, and depravation of liberty is like. Everyone on this planet experienced some sort of prejudice, but that is a far cry from "dissappearing" for speaking your mind.
Unless you've been locked up in a dirt cell and had your entire family murdered for no apparent reason, you have no right to complain about the minor trespasses of a democratic government. While democracy is not perfect, the representive democracy used by the western world does allow for the will of the people to bring about change without the dangers of mob rule...or the whims of an individual.
In a free society, maintaining liberty is the repsonsbility of the people. When the people stop caring, they give up their liberty. The wiretaps are really a non-issue because most people don't care. The downside to democracy is that a portion of the population is always going to be unhappy or feel violated by an action they oppose. It sucks, but that's how it is. You can't always be on the winning side.
And what has that accomplished? All it's done is allowed those children to live longer in terrible conditions that haven't changed. This is the typical socialist attitude towards "fixing" things. Throw a bunch of money at something that sounds good and gives you worshippers and a warm, fuzzy feeling, but doesn't really accomplish anything in the long term.
Welfare is welfare is welfare. It doesn't matter what form it takes, it doesn't really help anyone in the end.
What he should be doing is spending some of that money doing exactly what he says in the article...building infrastructure to change the environment these children will grow up in. I don't know hwo a $100 dollar laptop is going to do anything, but maybe it will be the catalyst for real change.
Plenty of us do. Luckily, Most people vote party-line and are idiots. Right and left wingers tend to cancel each other out, leaving the rest of us, who can actually form our own opinions outside of political bias, to control the elections. Meanwhile, they are shouting lies and half-truths fed to them by their sheephearder overlords in the media and Washington, DC.
I'd just like to thank them for making my vote one of the ones that really count. Suckers!
I've been a Comcast internet customer for 4 years. I've seen it go from 1.5 Mbps to 6.6Mbps with only one $3 price increase. In 4 years, I've only had service interruption twice and both times were within a single day.
I've been a Vonage customer for a few months and have had no issues with them except some weirdness now and then with the phone not ringing when someone calls. In those cases, I do get my email notification that there is a voicemail. We've also had a couple issues where someone could not reach our number at all. That hasn't happened since the first week after the transition, so it must have worked itself out.
I will certainly be keeping an eye out for problems.
So...what gives NYT the right to see a list which may have my name on it? If the government has already violated my right to privacy wouldn't giving my name to NYT be violating it again? But that's supposed to be ok? And the NYT has never had photographers or reporters violate the rights of a private citizen in the name of a good story? I find that hard to believe.
The way I see it, the only people that have a right to see the list are the people on the list. Even then, they should only be allowed to see information relating to them.
If I grow and sell watermelons, I can sell them with following stipulations:
1)Only the purchaser may eat of the fruit. He may not share it.
2)The purchaser may not save any uneaten portion for future consumption.
3)The seeds may not be used to grow additional watermelons.
RIAA and MPAA are a bunch of ignorant f*cks. Do they even realize how ridiculous they sound? So, to summarize:
1)it's ok to make a back-up copy of the cd/dvd...as long as it is another cd
2)copy protection will be included on cd/dvd media to prevent #1
3)You may not use alternate media to make a backup
4)You may not circumvent copy protection to achieve #1
5)We will change these terms at will and lobby the government to enact laws to enforce these terms
6)If you do what we tell you not to do, or anything we happen to forget and think you shouldn't be doing, we will sue you and the government will support us and make you pay whatever dollar amount we ask for, even though we suffered no monetary damage because you copied a song to your iPod.
This is exactly why the government needs to keep it's nose out of private sector business.
While that may sound like a pretty crazy idea, in reality, it would probably benefit both countries. American entrepenuers would immediately rush into Mexico, creating millions of jobs. No longer would Mexicans have a reason to migrate north, many illegally.
Other benefits:
1) Access to all Mexican oil/natural resources, eliminating dependence on imported oil/resources
2) Illegal immigration from Mexico stopped
3) No more terrorist entry into Mexico
4) Increased tax base
5) Increase military - absorb existing and recruiting more - we could finally become the imperialist nation everyone accuses us of being...starting with Canada, then Central America. Cuba? Gone.
The beneifts seem limitless. I am sure there are some drawbacks, but I think they would be outweighed.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
"We, the people", being citizens of the United States, created and ratified this constitution for themselves. The Constitution explicitly grants rights & powers to the government. Nothing in the Constitution applies to non-citizens unless explicitly stated. When will people understand that the Constitution is not an implicit document. It is not a living document open to knee-jerk interpretation by Holly-go-lightly. There is a Supreme Court in place to make decisions regarding what is covered by the Constitution. We have a Legistlative process to ammend the Constitution according to the will of the people.
So, out of curiousity, could you please show me in the Constitution where the due process provisions explicitly apply to non-citizens?
If you can't find it and are concerned about this particular issue, write your Congressman or Senator and urge them to introduce legislation which proposes an ammendment to the constituion affording non-citizens the same due process rights as citizens. It's really very simple. They teach this in grade school. Well, they used to before soma-dispensing liberal Democrats started censoring the public education system, rewriting history, giving A's for effort, and leaving many citizens barely educated and utterly ignorant regarding the operation of our Democracy.
And before you bring up the 14th Ammendment, you cannot take the 14th Ammendment out of context when it refers to "any person". In the same sentence, it is explicitly referring to citizens. The use of a semicolon clearly indicates that the reference to "any person" is a continuing reference to citizens. This is further supported by the subsequent use of "any State". Obviously, "any state" is not referring to states that exist outside of the U.S.
Interesting to note that the French Constitution does explicitly exclude non-citizens from most Constitutional rights. Why is no one up in arms over that? Dumb question, I know.
Slashdot Mirror
You are completely wrong. Most blogs are just the current incarnation of personal websites run by ego-centric, know-it-all, wannabe journalists and cry-babies. Most of them just track back to some other equally lame blog. If you're lucky, you might be able to find the original source...which was probably a major news site.
Now, there are some legitimate news sites that have moved to a blog format, but that has nothing to do with blogging.
I consider a majority of blogs to be little more than shameless self-promotion. SPAM, if you will. As more and more people catch on to this, the less relevant they will become and they will join "guestbooks" in the great nothingness. Eventually people will stop updating their blogs because, face it, that's what happens. It's nothing more than a regurgitation of the early "personal" internet. It's a bit prettier and easier to maintain.
Because the Navy has its own mobile air fleet? One major reason is that flying/landing on an aircraft carrier is completely different from flying/landing on a normal runway.
The Army has planes, too. The Air Force doesn't have exclusive rights to flight. The branches all serve different purposes, but do have some overlapping capabilities.
My sister is part of an AWACS crew with the Air Force. My understanding is that both the Air Force and Navy have their own AWACS.
The entire premise is flawed because there is no such thing as overly hygienic. Sure, if you grow up in a sealed bubble, you will likely lack antibodies for certain things. However, you will have antibodies passed onto you from your mother.
We already know that every living thing develops certain immunities/resistance in specific environments. People in certain countries develop resistance to many indigenous parasites, while vistors become seriously ill.
If I do get sick, at least I'll live. More people die in developing countries from things we can easily remedy than the other way around.
This article is just more anti-western rhetoric suggesting that the west would be better off if we were dirtier and that we should apologize for being better off than someone else. We've already gone through our development and I'm thankful to have benefitted from it.
The new PC term for illegal aliens?? I think I'll adopt it straight away!
The studios need to retain consistency here. Obviously, all movies are the same price at the theater when they come out. There is no way to know which ones will do well. I can understand wanting a tiered download scheme. However, they have not done this with DVDs, so there is no precedent for this. A quick look at Best Buy shows all new-release DVDs of theatrical motion pictures to be 19.99, irrelevant of success.
I concede that 9.99 might be a little low for newly released DVDs if the current standard DVD price is 19.99. As long as downloads are kept below DVD retail price, I don't see a problem with new releases of successful movies being more than the new release of box-office bomb. It goes both ways, though. If they want tiered download pricing, they need to have tiered DVD box pricing as well. Otherwise they just come off as the greedy bastards that they are.
Amen! iTMS and iPod are separate entities having no dependence on the other. How hard is this to understand? I have an iPod and 99.9% of my music is NOT from iTMS. If I threw my iPod away, I could still buy all the music I want from iTMS and play it where ever I want. Sure, there's an extra step...so what? It's no different than downloading(legally) a movie, then having to burn it to a DVD for playback on a DVD player.
If anything, I'd like someone to force Apple to have better quality encoding on their downloads. The few albums I do have from iTMS sound awful. Not being able to re-download songs is a real turn-off as well. I don't think iTMS albums are worth $9.99.
Are you that ignorant? "Internet For All" is just code-name for another tax Europeans will have to pay for yet another substandard service provided by the government.
Europeans will be judged as a bunch of suckers that professed freedom while simultaneously giving that freedom away, tax by tax.
I, for one, welcome our new DotCom Bust 2.0 overlords! At least we can see this one coming.
But white people did not fly planes into the WTC and Pentagon. You can be sure that if they had, the ACLU wouldn't be standing up for the white people getting profiled at airports.
Of course, this doesn't mean their aren't white terrorists. Clearly, they exist and could strike at anytime.
Many people have made the comment that he had no problem because he was white. Although playing the race card is pretty ignorant, I see no mention of the race of the TSA workers that let this guy through so easily. For the white conspiracy to work, every TSA employee had to have been white.
I'll tell ya, my wife works for the government and most of our friends do as well. I grew up around government workers. Most of them hate the government, especially when the GOP is in control. The government would never get away with most of the conspiracies attributed to them. Yes, they routinely make bad "official" descisions, but they are rarely carried out in any effective manner. Most government workers have the "union" attitude. They go to work and do their job however they feel like, because it's impossible to get fired. If some TSA supervisor told a bunch of grumpy TSA peons to go profile certain types of people, I wouldn't count on them giving two squirts. If any of them thought there was some systemic conspiracy going on, they'd be on the phone to the media in a flash.
I know people want the government to be the bigbadevilsuper-entity, but it really isn't. When you see inside, it's amazing that we survive as a country at all. It would be amusing if it weren't so disturbing.
This post is nonsense. The government doesn't represent the end of your privacy. Being born has already ended your privacy. (Apologies to those not born). You trade your info in exchange for freedom, protection, and opportunity many can only dream of. You, however, are not obliged to live here. You have my explicit permission to leave and make room for those who know what real governmental abuse is like.
Umm...are we not a sovereign country? Are we not entitled to decide who we let into this country as well as the stipulations required for entry. We have the most relaxed immigration policies of any modern country. THERE IS NO NEED TO SNEAK IN.
We let people in and give them money to start businesses while people born here can't even get a decent primary education. We pay foreigners to attend our universities while most Americans are in debt up to their eyeballs for a basic 4-year degree and about to get royally screwed on student loan interest rates.
I'm tired of all the bleeding hearts that think we should let immigrant anarchy rule. If you're so anxious to let people in, let them come take over your home without your permission. Let's how welcoming you really are.
I'm also tired of a government that doesn't enforce it's own friggin immigration laws. We already gave millions of ILLEGAL ALIENS amnesty once and it did no good. The idea that we will give amnesty one again...in return for payment of fines and back taxes is beyond absurd.
1) Where is the incentive? Many illegals lead a perfectly fine life here. We don't enforce our immigration laws, nor will we ever do so. Why would they bother to come out of hiding and dish up some dough?
2) Who is going to collect said payments?
People say that we don't have the resources to round up and deport illegals. How in the heck can we collect anything from them?? Get real.
I understand the war on terror, but it's time for Bush to get his head out of his arse and stop worrying about poppycockery like gay marriage and start taking care of business. The Senate better get their sh*t together as well.
Here, here! This is the type of moronic article I'd expect to find the whiny conspiracy victims on Digg stroking each other about.
No digg.
I don't see why people have such a hard time understanding the internet. It's similar to the global transporation system. There are many methods of transportation around the world: air, rail, water, roadways, and various combinations therewith. There is no singular authority controlling them, however, there are independent authorities that must work together to make transporation possible. Generally, like in the U.S, government is only a regulatory authority. In some countries, transporation mechanisms are actually state-owned.
In the U.S, roadways are "owned" by the state. The Eisenhower Interstate Highway System is subsidized by the federal government to promote interstate transporation. As a result, the federal government regulates interstate roadway travel. They routinely hold funding of this system hostage to strong-arm states into submission regarding various issues.
The various rail systems are owned by the private companies that built them. This is probably a clearer illustration of how the internet works. My guess is that you would have to pay to build a depot or stop somewhere along that rail. You would then have to pay another fee to run your own train on a given route. You may have to pay multiple companies if you need to travel on a section of railway owned by another company. In addition, you may have to pay additional charges based on the number of cars you pull AND the contents. All the while, nearly every aspect is regulated by local, state, and federal governments. Fun times.
I realize this is an oversimplification, but I don't see why people get so uppity about regulation and corporate control of the internet. Frankly, I'm surprised it's taken this long for the idea of a tiered system to come up. Now that the net has become ubiquitous in most of the free world, it was only a matter of time. I'm not saying it's good or bad; it doesn't really matter. Whether you like it or not, the current internet/web is a result of private enterprise and no one should expect to get it for free or unregulated.
Sometimes, I wish the whole thing would just die. If the net is tiered and Google has to pay a surcharge on traffic, you can bet your bottom dollar that Google will start charging you for searches. They will come up with some way to offset the cost. We all know who loses in the end.
Exactly. This so-called net-neutrality has nothing to do with free speech. What if all the telcos just shut down their pipes and there was no more internet? Does that deny you your freedom of speech? Of course not. Neither does charging whatever the hell they want, in whatever manner they want, to use their networks.
There is no need for government interference at this poinit. Let the telcos try to do this and see how many content providers succumb to it. Personally, the internet is not THAT important. We all got along just fine before it. Sure, it'd be a bit inconvient at first, but we'll all get over it.
Maybe I'm just burnt out on technology. I've just about had it with cell phones/blackberries and all the retards running around with their Borg-like bluetooth earpieces! I think I'm gonna start taking photos of people with those stupid things.
I agree. The story summary gets lost with the font and general crampiness. I would inject the story column from the runner up into the winner. I'd prefer the runner-up if the design didn't extend to the edge.
A complaint early on about the runner-up design was the fact that the right column sections do not function like those on the left. The sections on the right should be collapsable as well. I just discovered the the left-hand columns on the winner collapse. This is not obvious at all. It suffers the same inconsistency.
I think the best design would be a combo of the the winner and runner-up.
Apparently you missed the part where he invoked Columbine to threaten the school. Game Over.
As someone else mentioned, freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequence. If I am a tax payer sending my child to public school and a student of that school makes a veiled threat to the school, the school has a duty to remove that student from school and possibly file charges against him. If the school doesn't do it, the community should get involved and do it for them. This particular student obviously has issues and should be removed from the school immediately.
You're joking, right? The U.K is leading the charge in the elimination of privacy rights. Remember, George Orwell was English, not American. Show me a country with more freedom than the U.S and let them cast the first stone. I think the biggest problem in the U.S is that we take our liberty for granted. No one (or very few) born and raised here has ANY idea what real dictatorship, oppression, and depravation of liberty is like. Everyone on this planet experienced some sort of prejudice, but that is a far cry from "dissappearing" for speaking your mind.
Unless you've been locked up in a dirt cell and had your entire family murdered for no apparent reason, you have no right to complain about the minor trespasses of a democratic government. While democracy is not perfect, the representive democracy used by the western world does allow for the will of the people to bring about change without the dangers of mob rule...or the whims of an individual.
In a free society, maintaining liberty is the repsonsbility of the people. When the people stop caring, they give up their liberty. The wiretaps are really a non-issue because most people don't care. The downside to democracy is that a portion of the population is always going to be unhappy or feel violated by an action they oppose. It sucks, but that's how it is. You can't always be on the winning side.
And what has that accomplished? All it's done is allowed those children to live longer in terrible conditions that haven't changed. This is the typical socialist attitude towards "fixing" things. Throw a bunch of money at something that sounds good and gives you worshippers and a warm, fuzzy feeling, but doesn't really accomplish anything in the long term.
Welfare is welfare is welfare. It doesn't matter what form it takes, it doesn't really help anyone in the end.
What he should be doing is spending some of that money doing exactly what he says in the article...building infrastructure to change the environment these children will grow up in. I don't know hwo a $100 dollar laptop is going to do anything, but maybe it will be the catalyst for real change.
Plenty of us do. Luckily, Most people vote party-line and are idiots. Right and left wingers tend to cancel each other out, leaving the rest of us, who can actually form our own opinions outside of political bias, to control the elections. Meanwhile, they are shouting lies and half-truths fed to them by their sheephearder overlords in the media and Washington, DC.
I'd just like to thank them for making my vote one of the ones that really count. Suckers!
I've been a Comcast internet customer for 4 years. I've seen it go from 1.5 Mbps to 6.6Mbps with only one $3 price increase. In 4 years, I've only had service interruption twice and both times were within a single day.
I've been a Vonage customer for a few months and have had no issues with them except some weirdness now and then with the phone not ringing when someone calls. In those cases, I do get my email notification that there is a voicemail. We've also had a couple issues where someone could not reach our number at all. That hasn't happened since the first week after the transition, so it must have worked itself out.
I will certainly be keeping an eye out for problems.
So...what gives NYT the right to see a list which may have my name on it? If the government has already violated my right to privacy wouldn't giving my name to NYT be violating it again? But that's supposed to be ok? And the NYT has never had photographers or reporters violate the rights of a private citizen in the name of a good story? I find that hard to believe.
The way I see it, the only people that have a right to see the list are the people on the list. Even then, they should only be allowed to see information relating to them.
If I grow and sell watermelons, I can sell them with following stipulations:
1)Only the purchaser may eat of the fruit. He may not share it.
2)The purchaser may not save any uneaten portion for future consumption.
3)The seeds may not be used to grow additional watermelons.
RIAA and MPAA are a bunch of ignorant f*cks. Do they even realize how ridiculous they sound? So, to summarize:
1)it's ok to make a back-up copy of the cd/dvd...as long as it is another cd
2)copy protection will be included on cd/dvd media to prevent #1
3)You may not use alternate media to make a backup
4)You may not circumvent copy protection to achieve #1
5)We will change these terms at will and lobby the government to enact laws to enforce these terms
6)If you do what we tell you not to do, or anything we happen to forget and think you shouldn't be doing, we will sue you and the government will support us and make you pay whatever dollar amount we ask for, even though we suffered no monetary damage because you copied a song to your iPod.
This is exactly why the government needs to keep it's nose out of private sector business.
While that may sound like a pretty crazy idea, in reality, it would probably benefit both countries. American entrepenuers would immediately rush into Mexico, creating millions of jobs. No longer would Mexicans have a reason to migrate north, many illegally.
Other benefits:
1) Access to all Mexican oil/natural resources, eliminating dependence on imported oil/resources
2) Illegal immigration from Mexico stopped
3) No more terrorist entry into Mexico
4) Increased tax base
5) Increase military - absorb existing and recruiting more - we could finally become the imperialist nation everyone accuses us of being...starting with Canada, then Central America. Cuba? Gone.
The beneifts seem limitless. I am sure there are some drawbacks, but I think they would be outweighed.
Um, how about the first sentence?
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
"We, the people", being citizens of the United States, created and ratified this constitution for themselves. The Constitution explicitly grants rights & powers to the government. Nothing in the Constitution applies to non-citizens unless explicitly stated. When will people understand that the Constitution is not an implicit document. It is not a living document open to knee-jerk interpretation by Holly-go-lightly. There is a Supreme Court in place to make decisions regarding what is covered by the Constitution. We have a Legistlative process to ammend the Constitution according to the will of the people.
So, out of curiousity, could you please show me in the Constitution where the due process provisions explicitly apply to non-citizens?
If you can't find it and are concerned about this particular issue, write your Congressman or Senator and urge them to introduce legislation which proposes an ammendment to the constituion affording non-citizens the same due process rights as citizens. It's really very simple. They teach this in grade school. Well, they used to before soma-dispensing liberal Democrats started censoring the public education system, rewriting history, giving A's for effort, and leaving many citizens barely educated and utterly ignorant regarding the operation of our Democracy.
And before you bring up the 14th Ammendment, you cannot take the 14th Ammendment out of context when it refers to "any person". In the same sentence, it is explicitly referring to citizens. The use of a semicolon clearly indicates that the reference to "any person" is a continuing reference to citizens. This is further supported by the subsequent use of "any State". Obviously, "any state" is not referring to states that exist outside of the U.S.
Interesting to note that the French Constitution does explicitly exclude non-citizens from most Constitutional rights. Why is no one up in arms over that? Dumb question, I know.