Is there are reason that we haven't heard about the Clinton's FBI's Carnivore (or descendants of carnivore) lately?
Don't get me wrong. I'm glad we're hearing about Obama's continuation of Bush's domestic spying. But just wondering why we aren't hearing about Obama continuing Clinton's domestic spying.
If you start thinking some people shouldn't have the vote and you aren't prepared to give up your vote then you are just an ignorant hypocrite.
This statement of yours alone makes my case that there are too many ignorant and stupid people out there. Not only are you ignorant -- even after having read what I wrote -- but you're full of condescending bull-sh*t. I realize that you're probably a victim of the public education system, but go back and sound out the words real slowly and try to understand them as you go. You'll find that I was expressly against taking their vote away.
But, WTF, like so many, why let the facts get in your way.
Nevermind all the "smart" people behind great human endeavors like WWI, austerity, or the invasion of Iraq. Nevermind the circular that the poor should surrender their voting rights to elitists, when they are poor because of elitist policies to begin with.
When I go to Wal-Mart and look around, I'm glad so few people vote. I think a case can be made that too many ignorant and/or stupid people vote.
If you're a neofeudalist, sure. Why don't you repeal the 20th Century and go back to only white male property owners having the vote, while you're at it?
I think you missed my point. I don't object to people voting: young, old, rich, poor, white, black, brown, yellow, red, green, and blue. I object to ignorant people voting. I object to stupid people voting. I even stated that I will defend their right to vote; but encouraging someone who is stupid or ignorant to vote, that's just stupid.
57.5% of eligible voters turned out for the 2012 US elections....
Completely off topic, but everyone keeps saying how bad it is that so few people actually vote. When I go to Wal-Mart and look around, I'm glad so few people vote. I think a case can be made that too many ignorant and/or stupid people vote.
Yes, we have to protect their right to vote, but I'm pretty sure it's stupid to be encouraging them.
How much of this is a reflection of "I trust the government, if my guy is in charge. I don't trust the government if the other guy is in charge."
The Patriot Act is probably a great example of this. How many people flipped positions on whether the Patriot Act was a good thing or a bad thing when Bush left office and Obama became president?
From what I can see, consistency of thought and philosophy seems rather rare in American politics. Too many people are partisan whores who always agree with their party and always disagree with the other party.
No, this is really an absurd profit, Standard Oil's net profit from 1882 to 1906 was $838,783,800 equal to roughly $22B today, so on an inflation adjusted basis Apple's quarterly profit was nearly equal to the majority of the lifetime profits of one of the classic robber baron trusts.
The U.S. population in 1906 was 85,450,000 compared to 2014's population of 322,583,006. Apple is definitively a world wide, global corporation. Did Standard Oil reach as far.
Sorry, but you don't have much of a comparison here.
My argument is that if someone isn't safe enough to drive people around for money, then they're not really safe enough to drive at all. If we need more stringent driving tests and vehicle inspections before we permit anyone to drive for any purpose, then okay, let's have those.
I appreciate your argument, but I think you're wrong. I think there is more risk to reward trade-off analysis to be applied. There's a major difference between the risks of a person driving two blocks to the grocery store and someone driving a 25-mile school bus route. I want more scrutiny on the bus driver than the mom going for a carton of milk.
When it comes to Uber-Lyft, I admit that I'm on the fence. There certainly should be a regulatory even playing field: either apply existing taxi laws to the Uber-Lyft drivers or remove those restrictions and regulations from the taxis.
Claiming "free market" when one side is regulated and the other isn't is disingenuous.
I'm not sure about that. Just before Gulf II, Bush the lesser was incredibly popular. By the time that 2008 rolled around, most people didn't want war. So war is just one of those things that goes in and out of fashion.
I'm trying to oppose your using a single data point to draw conclusions, by demonstrating that there are other data points that contradict all of your pseudo-scientific babbling about hard-wiring.
Did you even read the article on testosterone in the womb? Have you tried googling it? There is a lot of real science about people being born predisposed to male roles versus female roles. Even explaining why your one son has been feminized.
As far as women in IT, I haven't taken a stand on it. I have only taken a stand on the idiotic notion that culture is the only thing guiding people's choices and that people's natural wiring has nothing to do with it.
What I said he enjoys playing with toys that would be traditionally viewed as "girly" - which of course throws a wrinkle in your whole thesis, so it's easier to subtly call my kid a faggot
I never called your son a faggot. I said feminization. Obviously you're hypersensitive and resentful of how your son has turned out so far. Really. There's nothing wrong with your son being gay (even though I never said he was -- but you need to watch you attitude. You're going to do the exact thing you're so proud that you haven't. You're the one that is going to actively damage him because of your own hostility.).
sorry, this post is just so ignorant. You should look into the actual research on this....
Sorry Coward, I have done plenty of research on the topic and yours is the ignorant post (perhaps explaining why you choose Anonymous Coward). Try Googling testosterone womb and you might learn something.
Sorry to be the one to inform you, but everybody is wired different from birth.
I'm sorry Coward, I'm confused. Are you trying to extend my argument that people are wired from birth (and not by up bringing) or are you trying to oppose it. Or maybe you've decided on a false strawman claiming I said they are wired from birth only one way?
As far as your feminized son goes, there's plenty of evidence that it probably has to do with the level of testosterone in womb.
Except when that boy's testosterone starts to flow at puberty, he'll see what kind of a bitch his "dad" really is. MAN THE FUCK UP and get a real job, pansy ass. You just said men and women are wired differently at birth. Why are you attempting to subvert your natural place in the world, huh?
From the parent
my wife is also in the tech field
-- meaning we're both in the tech field (and based on laws of averages, each of us is making more than you do), so I guess you failed at reading comprehension. Let me guess, you're male (males tend to suck at reading comprehension more than girls do -- it's PC to say that only because it slams the male [and can be backed up with statistics]).
Number one can't be addressed within kernel community in any way. No point to even try. It should be addressed within our whole culture, by revising our notion of gender roles.
Do you have kids? I have 3: one boy and two girls. As far as gender role models go, my wife is also in the tech field. I do all the cooking at my house. My father-in-law does all the cooking at his house. My wife has cooked a total of five meals in 20 years. I've never seen my mother-in-law cook. The kids were effectively raised with reverse gender roles.
When the older two were three and four years old, we plopped them in the dirt while building our garden. The boy grab a matchbox truck that had been left over from the previous owners and start pushing it through the dirt making engine noises. The girl started making mud pies.
Sorry to be the one to inform you, but boys and girls are wired different from birth. Testosterone probably plays a huge role in this. I realize that that was political incorrect to say, but a little real world information would be great before going through and doing grand experiments on all of society to fit your perceived notion of the way things ought to be.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their kernel
.
Hey, hey, HEY! Careful there. You might just get sued for copyright infringement by King's estate.
All of us should have the right to lobby our legislators and legislatures.
Where it's a problem is when we have these professionals and big money behind them to effectively give them a larger voice than the rest of us.
How can one compete
Each congresscritter has about 725,000 (3.16M / 435) people living in their district. If everyone decides to directly lobby their congresscritter -- and the only thing the congresscritter does 24 hours a day is listen to constituents -- then each person gets less than 44 seconds a year to talk to their congresscritter.
The system needs to group voices together otherwise it would never work.
By the way, your seriously deluding yourself if you think we've ever had a system of justice. We have a system of laws (such as it is). Justice is a mythical creature that only exists in theory. One person's justice is another person's injustice.
I know. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, at least a little. The alternative, as you said yourself, is anarchy.
Justice cannot be achieved. Take the case of Michael Brown versus Officer Wilson. If Wilson isn't charged, there is a sizable contingency that will know that justice was not served. If Officer Wilson was charged, there is a sizable contingency that will know that justice was not served.
The best you can hope for is a system of laws where everyone is equal before the law. Yes, I know, this is also a pipe dream. But it is the best you can hope for. So, in absence of a justice system -- you can have a system of laws. You don't need to have anarchy.
Slashdot Mirror
... here's the thing, IMHO, 95% of U.S. politicians are cowards...
Optimist.
Is there are reason that we haven't heard about the Clinton's FBI's Carnivore (or descendants of carnivore) lately?
Don't get me wrong. I'm glad we're hearing about Obama's continuation of Bush's domestic spying. But just wondering why we aren't hearing about Obama continuing Clinton's domestic spying.
"I was okay with heart disease and lung cancer, but shit Mabel, now there claiming links to kidney and intestinal problems!"
If they ever promote the link to erectile dysfunction, tobacco companies will lose half their customers.
The reality is that governments are addicted to the tax income. 11 billion a year in Australia.
Why was this marked troll? If governments in the United States were not getting $17B a year in tax revenue would it still be legal?
I notice that if you blame big phrama (next entry down) you get modded "interesting". Blame tax revenues and you get marked "troll".
What an emotionally charged word :"explore". The Solar System's mostly empty. Big deal. What's to explore?
No kidding. They should have said browse the solar system. Everyone knows that explore has an inherent Microsoft bias.
If you start thinking some people shouldn't have the vote and you aren't prepared to give up your vote then you are just an ignorant hypocrite.
This statement of yours alone makes my case that there are too many ignorant and stupid people out there. Not only are you ignorant -- even after having read what I wrote -- but you're full of condescending bull-sh*t. I realize that you're probably a victim of the public education system, but go back and sound out the words real slowly and try to understand them as you go. You'll find that I was expressly against taking their vote away.
But, WTF, like so many, why let the facts get in your way.
Nevermind all the "smart" people behind great human endeavors like WWI, austerity, or the invasion of Iraq. Nevermind the circular that the poor should surrender their voting rights to elitists, when they are poor because of elitist policies to begin with.
If you're a neofeudalist, sure. Why don't you repeal the 20th Century and go back to only white male property owners having the vote, while you're at it?
I think you missed my point. I don't object to people voting: young, old, rich, poor, white, black, brown, yellow, red, green, and blue. I object to ignorant people voting. I object to stupid people voting. I even stated that I will defend their right to vote; but encouraging someone who is stupid or ignorant to vote, that's just stupid.
57.5% of eligible voters turned out for the 2012 US elections....
Completely off topic, but everyone keeps saying how bad it is that so few people actually vote. When I go to Wal-Mart and look around, I'm glad so few people vote. I think a case can be made that too many ignorant and/or stupid people vote.
Yes, we have to protect their right to vote, but I'm pretty sure it's stupid to be encouraging them.
How much of this is a reflection of "I trust the government, if my guy is in charge. I don't trust the government if the other guy is in charge."
The Patriot Act is probably a great example of this. How many people flipped positions on whether the Patriot Act was a good thing or a bad thing when Bush left office and Obama became president?
From what I can see, consistency of thought and philosophy seems rather rare in American politics. Too many people are partisan whores who always agree with their party and always disagree with the other party.
No, this is really an absurd profit, Standard Oil's net profit from 1882 to 1906 was $838,783,800 equal to roughly $22B today, so on an inflation adjusted basis Apple's quarterly profit was nearly equal to the majority of the lifetime profits of one of the classic robber baron trusts.
The U.S. population in 1906 was 85,450,000 compared to 2014's population of 322,583,006. Apple is definitively a world wide, global corporation. Did Standard Oil reach as far.
Sorry, but you don't have much of a comparison here.
My argument is that if someone isn't safe enough to drive people around for money, then they're not really safe enough to drive at all. If we need more stringent driving tests and vehicle inspections before we permit anyone to drive for any purpose, then okay, let's have those.
I appreciate your argument, but I think you're wrong. I think there is more risk to reward trade-off analysis to be applied. There's a major difference between the risks of a person driving two blocks to the grocery store and someone driving a 25-mile school bus route. I want more scrutiny on the bus driver than the mom going for a carton of milk.
When it comes to Uber-Lyft, I admit that I'm on the fence. There certainly should be a regulatory even playing field: either apply existing taxi laws to the Uber-Lyft drivers or remove those restrictions and regulations from the taxis.
Claiming "free market" when one side is regulated and the other isn't is disingenuous.
and they're much more likely to be sued, and for more money.
But war, war never changes.
I'm not sure about that. Just before Gulf II, Bush the lesser was incredibly popular. By the time that 2008 rolled around, most people didn't want war. So war is just one of those things that goes in and out of fashion.
[M]any smokers lied when looking for coverage, saying they had quit.
Giving up smoking is the easiest thing in the world. I know because I've done it thousands of times. -- Mark Twain
'You get what you pay for' is also common sense.
Actually, it should be you pay for what you get.
I'm trying to oppose your using a single data point to draw conclusions, by demonstrating that there are other data points that contradict all of your pseudo-scientific babbling about hard-wiring.
Did you even read the article on testosterone in the womb? Have you tried googling it? There is a lot of real science about people being born predisposed to male roles versus female roles. Even explaining why your one son has been feminized.
As far as women in IT, I haven't taken a stand on it. I have only taken a stand on the idiotic notion that culture is the only thing guiding people's choices and that people's natural wiring has nothing to do with it.
What I said he enjoys playing with toys that would be traditionally viewed as "girly" - which of course throws a wrinkle in your whole thesis, so it's easier to subtly call my kid a faggot
I never called your son a faggot. I said feminization. Obviously you're hypersensitive and resentful of how your son has turned out so far. Really. There's nothing wrong with your son being gay (even though I never said he was -- but you need to watch you attitude. You're going to do the exact thing you're so proud that you haven't. You're the one that is going to actively damage him because of your own hostility.).
sorry, this post is just so ignorant. You should look into the actual research on this....
Sorry Coward, I have done plenty of research on the topic and yours is the ignorant post (perhaps explaining why you choose Anonymous Coward). Try Googling testosterone womb and you might learn something.
Sorry to be the one to inform you, but everybody is wired different from birth.
I'm sorry Coward, I'm confused. Are you trying to extend my argument that people are wired from birth (and not by up bringing) or are you trying to oppose it. Or maybe you've decided on a false strawman claiming I said they are wired from birth only one way?
As far as your feminized son goes, there's plenty of evidence that it probably has to do with the level of testosterone in womb.
Except when that boy's testosterone starts to flow at puberty, he'll see what kind of a bitch his "dad" really is. MAN THE FUCK UP and get a real job, pansy ass. You just said men and women are wired differently at birth. Why are you attempting to subvert your natural place in the world, huh?
From the parent
my wife is also in the tech field
-- meaning we're both in the tech field (and based on laws of averages, each of us is making more than you do), so I guess you failed at reading comprehension. Let me guess, you're male (males tend to suck at reading comprehension more than girls do -- it's PC to say that only because it slams the male [and can be backed up with statistics]).
Number one can't be addressed within kernel community in any way. No point to even try. It should be addressed within our whole culture, by revising our notion of gender roles.
Do you have kids? I have 3: one boy and two girls. As far as gender role models go, my wife is also in the tech field. I do all the cooking at my house. My father-in-law does all the cooking at his house. My wife has cooked a total of five meals in 20 years. I've never seen my mother-in-law cook. The kids were effectively raised with reverse gender roles.
When the older two were three and four years old, we plopped them in the dirt while building our garden. The boy grab a matchbox truck that had been left over from the previous owners and start pushing it through the dirt making engine noises. The girl started making mud pies.
Sorry to be the one to inform you, but boys and girls are wired different from birth. Testosterone probably plays a huge role in this. I realize that that was political incorrect to say, but a little real world information would be great before going through and doing grand experiments on all of society to fit your perceived notion of the way things ought to be.
Martin Luther King:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their kernel
.
Hey, hey, HEY! Careful there. You might just get sued for copyright infringement by King's estate.
CPS doesn't beat the shit out of you, kill you and then say it was your own fault.
No. But they put you into foster homes that do.
All of us should have the right to lobby our legislators and legislatures. Where it's a problem is when we have these professionals and big money behind them to effectively give them a larger voice than the rest of us. How can one compete
Each congresscritter has about 725,000 (3.16M / 435) people living in their district. If everyone decides to directly lobby their congresscritter -- and the only thing the congresscritter does 24 hours a day is listen to constituents -- then each person gets less than 44 seconds a year to talk to their congresscritter.
The system needs to group voices together otherwise it would never work.
Or, what's wrong with campaign financing in the US.
When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators. -- P. J. O'Rourke
I know. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, at least a little. The alternative, as you said yourself, is anarchy.
Justice cannot be achieved. Take the case of Michael Brown versus Officer Wilson. If Wilson isn't charged, there is a sizable contingency that will know that justice was not served. If Officer Wilson was charged, there is a sizable contingency that will know that justice was not served.
The best you can hope for is a system of laws where everyone is equal before the law. Yes, I know, this is also a pipe dream. But it is the best you can hope for. So, in absence of a justice system -- you can have a system of laws. You don't need to have anarchy.