George Bush has proven that the American constitution has no teeth.
It is not the American Constitution that has no teeth, it is the American people and I say this as an American. I am disgusted with how sad, feeble, and pathetic the average American is and how unwilling they are to fight for anything. Hell, they don't even fight for their right to keep guns, the very thing that will help them should they find a need to fight again, and the only thing that forces the government to listen to them.
True, but the question is; would the kid committing suicide notice this very subtle and technical difference before they kill themselves? Cause I assure you, the media won't be making that point clear.
There is a theory that states that whenever anybody discovers exactly what The Universe is and what it should be called, it will instantly disappear and be replaced with something even more bizarrely inexplicable. There is another theory that states that this has already happened.
at worst a logical flaw similar to Lamarkian Evolution [wikipedia.org] wherein giraffes have long necks because their ancestors stretched out trying to graze from tall shrubs, then trees, rather than the Darwinian idea that giraffes have long necks because short necked giraffes did not live to reproduce as well as long necked ones.
Those options do not seem mutually-exclusive to me. In fact, one would have to postulate that they both happened.
For those to tired to think, Darwin's theory only suggests why which of the two types of giraffes survived and still exist while the Lamarkian theory suggests why some giraffes were born with long necks.
It's an interesting commentary on how skewed the politics in America have gotten that the idea of a graduated income tax is controversial, or that the idea of raising taxes on those best able to afford it in times of fiscal crisis is somehow a socialist plot.
Graduated income taxes are controversial, they are one of the worst kind of class warfare that exists and the least understood. By over-taxing the rich to help the poor (and maybe middle class), they are effectively making it impossible for the middle class to ever become rich, let alone wealthy. Period.
Don't believe me? Just think about it, what is the tax rate of the highest tax bracket (50-66% I believe), so that once you've escaped the middle class tax bracket, you have to earn 3-4 dollars for every 1 dollar you want to keep. Talk about a law of diminishing returns.
If we got rid of the insurance companies in the first place, there would be nobody who could afford the unrealistically high medical fees that are charged these days, thus the doctors/hospitals/pharmaceutical companies would be forced to lower their prices. Period, end of problem. It is the evil insurance company with the seemingly bottom-less pockets that allows the prices of medicine to be so artificially high and as thus is not necessary.
You assume they are trying to catch Osama Bin Laden, which is a separate beast from what they are saying they are doing. I wouldn't agree but that does not invalidate your entire point.
As far as the illusion of control, you are correct, which is one of the reasons why I love that song from Gnarles Barkley, "You think you're really in control? Ha Ha Ha, Bless your soul..". But even in the worst case, it is not the people versus the government, it is the people versus the military and the military doesn't wield all of the power, only some of it. The question will be, is the power granted to the military worth more to them then their allegiance to their, families, friends, neighbors, and the love of what was once their great country. After all, our military should be trained to be Men of Honor above all else.
Really? Are you sure? I'd say only the Rich and Foolish pay the more in taxes than the rest of us and although I'm sure they exist, they cannot represent the majority of the rich, because how can you get to be rich when you;re handing 60% of your income to the government.
In reality, almost all of the tax deductions, loop-holes, and legal whos-a-whatches are designed for and taken advantage of by the rich who can afford to pay accounting and tax experts to handle their finances for them. Do you really think they receive all of their income on a W-2, claimed on Schedule A? Are you nuts? What really happens is that they receive little to no income and pay little to no income tax and instead get to, via trusts, corporations, LLC's, etc. control the vast wealth they have attained and give the government as little as legally possible, sometimes, moreso.
I'm telling you, it's the biggest transferrance of wealth from rich to poor - EVER.
You assume again that money is coming from the rich, I assure you it is not. It is either paid by taxes or by inflation not by the rich. Consider for a moment how the banks actually work; the assumption is that the money they lend is money they actually have (whether in deposits, collected in interest, etc.) and they lend it out and while it is borrowed they have no use of it. This is not true, when money is borrowed, it is created out of nothing and lent to you and is expected to be paid back with interest, but the money DID NOT EXIST before it was borrowed and will cease to exist when it is paid back, the only money that still remains is the interest. So when you file bankruptcy or whatever and have your debts cleared, the note is destroyed and the bank loses an income stream of the interest. The actual principal disappears exactly as it would of if you had paid it back, with no negative effect to anyone (except the bank, because the "note" is considered an asset and was used to back even more loans) this collapse of "assets" breaks the books of the banks who have too many "non-performing assets" and they either get bailed out or close. In either case, another bank buys the remaining "notes" at a discount and uses them to create and lend out even more money.
In the end, the people at the bank who lent out money they never expected to be paid back, are the ones at fault, however, they will have face little to no repercussions and the people as a whole will pay either through taxes or inflation. The rich will stay rich or get even richer because they understand the value of money, that is, it has none, so you had better have your wealth stored in something else.
That's actually not true. What's going to happen is that extremely wealthy will get, at most, pennies on the dollar for all of these bad mortgages
Yes, but who is providing said pennies on the dollar, hmmm? Well, different Rich people of course. They get to buy up all the under-rated debt notes on pennies on the dollar, most of which will actually be paid back in full with interest (fear is whats drives this monster, not reality) and the DEPOSITORS, SHARE-HOLDERS and TAX-PAYERS, pay the difference, not the rich.
If they really wanted to bail out the mortgage market, let the borrowers buy back their OWN DEBT FOR PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR!!!! I know I would, in a heart-beat.
since when does copyright only defend huge evil global corporations? I'm a one man company and without copyright, I'd be out of a job
And are you, the little guy, involved in the secret negotiations of this treaty? I doubt it. Is there even a representative of the little guys involved in the secret negotiations of this treaty? Again, I doubt it. So, in effect, your straw-man argument is lacking, as the only way to ensure that the treaty is for the benefit of little guys, is for some of them to be there and have their voices heard. Which is, sadly not the case.
To answer your question; Copyright law only defends the the huge evil global corporations when they are the ones who write the law. Which is the point I believe the parent was attempting to make before you contorted it to be a diatribe against ALL copyright laws and not the treaty at hand.
Well, packaging when used in a chip manufacturing context, means taking the actual "chip" and putting it in its "package". The "package" is the protective shell around the chip that you actually see and has the pins that connect the chip to the board. The "chip" on the other hand, is a tiny little square/rectangle, that is put into the package, and then wired to the external pins.
Uh huh, I assume by this comment that you believe the government actually needs taxes to raise funds which is incorrect as they, in fact, do not hence deficit spending and the national debt.
Personally, I would rather they dump the income tax in favor of a national sales tax on all commercial sales (business-to-business, division-to-division, business-to-customer) which would be fair to everyone and offer no tax shelters, and in effect would generate more net funds than the income tax does now and eliminate all the waste of managing the tax system. But, unfortunately, it is not the government's prerogative to eliminate waste, the opposite is actually true.
Don't believe what I'm saying? Read "The Creature from Jeckyll Island" for a more in-depth view of how the world financial market really works.
Well I am not signing a contract with McDonalds, so I do not expect to be able to negotiate. I am, however, signing a contract with a mobile provider and as such do expect to be able to negotiate. That is one of the basic things that makes a contract a contract, that BOTH parties negotiate to reach an agreement. IANAL, but I have seen it said many times, that if the party with the superior bargaining power (wireless provider, in this case) is unwilling to negotiate any part of the contract, than the contract is not legally valid and/or enforceable.
It's not that I don't like early termination fees, I can see their point from their point of view, if and only if, they subsidize the price of my phone. If, however, they do not subsidize the price of my phone and the breach of contract costs them NOTHING then I see no reason for me to pay an early termination fee. In that case, the fee is only there to lock me into their service, which is ANTI-COMPETITIVE and hence, illegal. It is also, judging from this decision, unenforceable to charge a fee for breach of contract that exceeds the actual damages of said breach, regardless of what was agreed to. What apparently got Sprint in trouble, is that they didn't even bother to calculate the actual loss/damages of the contract breaches which plainly shows that they were not concerned about the damages, they were concerned about customer lock-in.
I take it you have never actually tried negotiating your contract with a wireless service provider. Otherwise, you would know, they will not negotiate. They know, full and well, that every other provider will not negotiate and the only choice you have is to have a cell phone or to not have a cell phone.
I know, because I've tried. I've tried, Brand new, already paid-for, phone in hand, to try and get the "Early Termination Fee" removed from a contract for which they provided me no extra service to deserve to demand. What did a get as a response? "Sorry sir, but that is our policy and it cannot be changed". Hell, even switched rate plans required signing a new 2-year contract, complete with a new early termination fee.
Don't be fooled Early termination fees exist solely to keep you from switching providers easily. It allows all of the wireless phone carriers to not compete for existing customers, only new ones. Personally, I was hoping for anti-trust suits but I am not naive enough to think I'll actually see it happen.
Yes, those were the good old days, all right. I played and beat all of the great Sierra Legacies and they all had great puzzles you had to figure out to beat the game. The only annoying part to some of them, which was due to the parser, was not only figuring out the solution to the puzzle, but the exact phrase you needed to enter for the game to understand and accept your solution.
For another answer; they don't need to win, they just need to fight. They will fight as free men and they will die as free men, they will never be ruled.
But you miss the point entirely. The amendment doesn't guarantee your right to win, just your right to fight and to do so armed (and in my opinion, armed equally).
What you also forget is the sheerness of the numbers, if every citizen in this country chose to stand up and fight and the government sent in the entire army, the army would be vastly outnumbered and overcrowded. Sure, the casulties would be many, but in the end, those who were fighting for freedom would win, or they would die and leave nothing and nobody left for the government to rule. Except for the surviving members of the military, who would have all the guns, and would obviously overthrow the government.
The problem with that is the way the "law" that now allows this to happen (unconstitutionally) is written. Not only can people be taken to Gitmo on the accusation of being a terrorist (from the "right" person), they will do so in secret. Any discussions of this to anyone violates the law. So in effect, the only way the citizens will know when to worry about it, is when their friends start disappearing without a trace. Hence, too late, which is why now is the time to worry. When you can see a straight line from where are now to where you would never hope to be, that's when you worry.
"he 9/11 conspiracy theorists are rabidly skeptical of anything presented by the government or mainstream media"
What I find interesting about this, is that neither side actually provides any evidence. The skeptics at least try to provide evidence but are seriously handicapped in this as all the evidence in the government's hands.
Basically, both sides say, "I'm an expert, and this (could never) or (would always) happen". But neither side, give evidence, like an experiment which would prove it. Even the history channel special I watched was disappointing in this regard, they just let a he-said, she-said debate rage and required nobody to back any statements up.
I'm on the side of not trusting the government in this instance, due to the fact that if what they were trying to say was really true (and lot of it certainly doesn't seem to be), release the evidence and prove the skeptics wrong, don't just say "Trust us". Because, as we all know, most people who say "Trust me" shouldn't be trusted.
In the case that they eventually need medical treatment that will be provided or subsidized by the state in any way, they directly effect you and I.
Well, no, they indirectly affect you and I, but the situation (or the reason it affects us) is not their fault, it is the State's. If you have a problem with the State subsidizing the health costs of drug users then I suggest you take it up with them.
In the case that they may become incarcerated ( whether one believes that to be just or not) in a federal institution, they again directly affect you and I.
Again, this is the State's decision, not the user's nor ours. The State is supposed represent the People's wishes, and if that were true, and if the People did not want to financially support drug users in any way, then State should no longer incarcerate people just for possessing drugs.
Last I heard, Ritalin was not prescribed to help "normal" individuals improve focus and concentration or combat jet lag
Now, do you think that is for medical reasons, or for financial reasons (Insurance doesn't want to pay) or for Moral reasons (Healthy people shouldn't use drugs)? The fact that it isn't prescribed for that purpose is meaningless without the reason why it is not prescribed.
Is it now? And please explain the problem caused by a well-informed individual utilizing a widely-available albeit controlled drug, in this case, Ritalin. Now if the problem you are about to cite only affects the person in question, then it is not of your concern, nor anyone else's. If this problem somehow affects you or any other innocent bystander, then please go ahead and cite.
Slashdot Mirror
George Bush has proven that the American constitution has no teeth.
It is not the American Constitution that has no teeth, it is the American people and I say this as an American. I am disgusted with how sad, feeble, and pathetic the average American is and how unwilling they are to fight for anything. Hell, they don't even fight for their right to keep guns, the very thing that will help them should they find a need to fight again, and the only thing that forces the government to listen to them.
True, but the question is; would the kid committing suicide notice this very subtle and technical difference before they kill themselves? Cause I assure you, the media won't be making that point clear.
There is a theory that states that whenever anybody discovers exactly what The Universe is and what it should be called, it will instantly disappear and be replaced with something even more bizarrely inexplicable. There is another theory that states that this has already happened.
at worst a logical flaw similar to Lamarkian Evolution [wikipedia.org] wherein giraffes have long necks because their ancestors stretched out trying to graze from tall shrubs, then trees, rather than the Darwinian idea that giraffes have long necks because short necked giraffes did not live to reproduce as well as long necked ones.
Those options do not seem mutually-exclusive to me. In fact, one would have to postulate that they both happened.
For those to tired to think, Darwin's theory only suggests why which of the two types of giraffes survived and still exist while the Lamarkian theory suggests why some giraffes were born with long necks.
It's an interesting commentary on how skewed the politics in America have gotten that the idea of a graduated income tax is controversial, or that the idea of raising taxes on those best able to afford it in times of fiscal crisis is somehow a socialist plot.
Graduated income taxes are controversial, they are one of the worst kind of class warfare that exists and the least understood. By over-taxing the rich to help the poor (and maybe middle class), they are effectively making it impossible for the middle class to ever become rich, let alone wealthy. Period.
Don't believe me? Just think about it, what is the tax rate of the highest tax bracket (50-66% I believe), so that once you've escaped the middle class tax bracket, you have to earn 3-4 dollars for every 1 dollar you want to keep. Talk about a law of diminishing returns.
BTW, the Post Office is a private enterprise and NOT government controlled.
If we got rid of the insurance companies in the first place, there would be nobody who could afford the unrealistically high medical fees that are charged these days, thus the doctors/hospitals/pharmaceutical companies would be forced to lower their prices. Period, end of problem. It is the evil insurance company with the seemingly bottom-less pockets that allows the prices of medicine to be so artificially high and as thus is not necessary.
As far as the illusion of control, you are correct, which is one of the reasons why I love that song from Gnarles Barkley, "You think you're really in control? Ha Ha Ha, Bless your soul..". But even in the worst case, it is not the people versus the government, it is the people versus the military and the military doesn't wield all of the power, only some of it. The question will be, is the power granted to the military worth more to them then their allegiance to their, families, friends, neighbors, and the love of what was once their great country. After all, our military should be trained to be Men of Honor above all else.
I guess that's why geeks outnumber nerds 2-to-1 and dorks 4-to-1. :)
In reality, almost all of the tax deductions, loop-holes, and legal whos-a-whatches are designed for and taken advantage of by the rich who can afford to pay accounting and tax experts to handle their finances for them. Do you really think they receive all of their income on a W-2, claimed on Schedule A? Are you nuts? What really happens is that they receive little to no income and pay little to no income tax and instead get to, via trusts, corporations, LLC's, etc. control the vast wealth they have attained and give the government as little as legally possible, sometimes, moreso.
I'm telling you, it's the biggest transferrance of wealth from rich to poor - EVER.
You assume again that money is coming from the rich, I assure you it is not. It is either paid by taxes or by inflation not by the rich. Consider for a moment how the banks actually work; the assumption is that the money they lend is money they actually have (whether in deposits, collected in interest, etc.) and they lend it out and while it is borrowed they have no use of it. This is not true, when money is borrowed, it is created out of nothing and lent to you and is expected to be paid back with interest, but the money DID NOT EXIST before it was borrowed and will cease to exist when it is paid back, the only money that still remains is the interest. So when you file bankruptcy or whatever and have your debts cleared, the note is destroyed and the bank loses an income stream of the interest. The actual principal disappears exactly as it would of if you had paid it back, with no negative effect to anyone (except the bank, because the "note" is considered an asset and was used to back even more loans) this collapse of "assets" breaks the books of the banks who have too many "non-performing assets" and they either get bailed out or close. In either case, another bank buys the remaining "notes" at a discount and uses them to create and lend out even more money.
In the end, the people at the bank who lent out money they never expected to be paid back, are the ones at fault, however, they will have face little to no repercussions and the people as a whole will pay either through taxes or inflation. The rich will stay rich or get even richer because they understand the value of money, that is, it has none, so you had better have your wealth stored in something else.
That's actually not true. What's going to happen is that extremely wealthy will get, at most, pennies on the dollar for all of these bad mortgages
Yes, but who is providing said pennies on the dollar, hmmm? Well, different Rich people of course. They get to buy up all the under-rated debt notes on pennies on the dollar, most of which will actually be paid back in full with interest (fear is whats drives this monster, not reality) and the DEPOSITORS, SHARE-HOLDERS and TAX-PAYERS, pay the difference, not the rich.
If they really wanted to bail out the mortgage market, let the borrowers buy back their OWN DEBT FOR PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR!!!! I know I would, in a heart-beat.
since when does copyright only defend huge evil global corporations? I'm a one man company and without copyright, I'd be out of a job
And are you, the little guy, involved in the secret negotiations of this treaty? I doubt it. Is there even a representative of the little guys involved in the secret negotiations of this treaty? Again, I doubt it. So, in effect, your straw-man argument is lacking, as the only way to ensure that the treaty is for the benefit of little guys, is for some of them to be there and have their voices heard. Which is, sadly not the case.
To answer your question; Copyright law only defends the the huge evil global corporations when they are the ones who write the law. Which is the point I believe the parent was attempting to make before you contorted it to be a diatribe against ALL copyright laws and not the treaty at hand.
Well, packaging when used in a chip manufacturing context, means taking the actual "chip" and putting it in its "package". The "package" is the protective shell around the chip that you actually see and has the pins that connect the chip to the board. The "chip" on the other hand, is a tiny little square/rectangle, that is put into the package, and then wired to the external pins.
Personally, I would rather they dump the income tax in favor of a national sales tax on all commercial sales (business-to-business, division-to-division, business-to-customer) which would be fair to everyone and offer no tax shelters, and in effect would generate more net funds than the income tax does now and eliminate all the waste of managing the tax system. But, unfortunately, it is not the government's prerogative to eliminate waste, the opposite is actually true.
Don't believe what I'm saying? Read "The Creature from Jeckyll Island" for a more in-depth view of how the world financial market really works.
It's not that I don't like early termination fees, I can see their point from their point of view, if and only if, they subsidize the price of my phone. If, however, they do not subsidize the price of my phone and the breach of contract costs them NOTHING then I see no reason for me to pay an early termination fee. In that case, the fee is only there to lock me into their service, which is ANTI-COMPETITIVE and hence, illegal. It is also, judging from this decision, unenforceable to charge a fee for breach of contract that exceeds the actual damages of said breach, regardless of what was agreed to. What apparently got Sprint in trouble, is that they didn't even bother to calculate the actual loss/damages of the contract breaches which plainly shows that they were not concerned about the damages, they were concerned about customer lock-in.
I know, because I've tried. I've tried, Brand new, already paid-for, phone in hand, to try and get the "Early Termination Fee" removed from a contract for which they provided me no extra service to deserve to demand. What did a get as a response? "Sorry sir, but that is our policy and it cannot be changed". Hell, even switched rate plans required signing a new 2-year contract, complete with a new early termination fee.
Don't be fooled Early termination fees exist solely to keep you from switching providers easily. It allows all of the wireless phone carriers to not compete for existing customers, only new ones. Personally, I was hoping for anti-trust suits but I am not naive enough to think I'll actually see it happen.
Yes, those were the good old days, all right. I played and beat all of the great Sierra Legacies and they all had great puzzles you had to figure out to beat the game. The only annoying part to some of them, which was due to the parser, was not only figuring out the solution to the puzzle, but the exact phrase you needed to enter for the game to understand and accept your solution.
And the problem with these things is what exactly....??
For another answer; they don't need to win, they just need to fight. They will fight as free men and they will die as free men, they will never be ruled.
But you miss the point entirely. The amendment doesn't guarantee your right to win, just your right to fight and to do so armed (and in my opinion, armed equally).
What you also forget is the sheerness of the numbers, if every citizen in this country chose to stand up and fight and the government sent in the entire army, the army would be vastly outnumbered and overcrowded. Sure, the casulties would be many, but in the end, those who were fighting for freedom would win, or they would die and leave nothing and nobody left for the government to rule. Except for the surviving members of the military, who would have all the guns, and would obviously overthrow the government.
The problem with that is the way the "law" that now allows this to happen (unconstitutionally) is written. Not only can people be taken to Gitmo on the accusation of being a terrorist (from the "right" person), they will do so in secret. Any discussions of this to anyone violates the law. So in effect, the only way the citizens will know when to worry about it, is when their friends start disappearing without a trace. Hence, too late, which is why now is the time to worry. When you can see a straight line from where are now to where you would never hope to be, that's when you worry.
"he 9/11 conspiracy theorists are rabidly skeptical of anything presented by the government or mainstream media" What I find interesting about this, is that neither side actually provides any evidence. The skeptics at least try to provide evidence but are seriously handicapped in this as all the evidence in the government's hands. Basically, both sides say, "I'm an expert, and this (could never) or (would always) happen". But neither side, give evidence, like an experiment which would prove it. Even the history channel special I watched was disappointing in this regard, they just let a he-said, she-said debate rage and required nobody to back any statements up. I'm on the side of not trusting the government in this instance, due to the fact that if what they were trying to say was really true (and lot of it certainly doesn't seem to be), release the evidence and prove the skeptics wrong, don't just say "Trust us". Because, as we all know, most people who say "Trust me" shouldn't be trusted.
Well, no, they indirectly affect you and I, but the situation (or the reason it affects us) is not their fault, it is the State's. If you have a problem with the State subsidizing the health costs of drug users then I suggest you take it up with them.
In the case that they may become incarcerated ( whether one believes that to be just or not) in a federal institution, they again directly affect you and I.Again, this is the State's decision, not the user's nor ours. The State is supposed represent the People's wishes, and if that were true, and if the People did not want to financially support drug users in any way, then State should no longer incarcerate people just for possessing drugs.
Last I heard, Ritalin was not prescribed to help "normal" individuals improve focus and concentration or combat jet lagNow, do you think that is for medical reasons, or for financial reasons (Insurance doesn't want to pay) or for Moral reasons (Healthy people shouldn't use drugs)? The fact that it isn't prescribed for that purpose is meaningless without the reason why it is not prescribed.
Is it now? And please explain the problem caused by a well-informed individual utilizing a widely-available albeit controlled drug, in this case, Ritalin. Now if the problem you are about to cite only affects the person in question, then it is not of your concern, nor anyone else's. If this problem somehow affects you or any other innocent bystander, then please go ahead and cite.