Sigh. Already posted some of that.. Too many forums, too little time, 
and too many bloody late night shifts this week. lol

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:33:51 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom>
wrote:

>
>Well, given you can find idiots in places like Florida that actually 
>state things like this:
>
>"Obama is a Marxist... What's a Marxist anyway?", and be seriously 
>apposed to what they don't even fracking know the definition of...
>

Surely Marxist/Communist is just a generic insult from the right?

>http://www.youtube.com/v/2wLYgbS8HeA&hl=en&fs=1&

I could not view it 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:33:51 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom>
> wrote:
> 
>> Well, given you can find idiots in places like Florida that actually 
>> state things like this:
>>
>> "Obama is a Marxist... What's a Marxist anyway?", and be seriously 
>> apposed to what they don't even fracking know the definition of...
>>
> 
> Surely Marxist/Communist is just a generic insult from the right?
> 

That is a quote from someone in the video.

>> http://www.youtube.com/v/2wLYgbS8HeA&hl=en&fs=1&
> 
> I could not view it 

Guy with video camera goes out to a Teabag Rally, and asks people to
describe what they have against Obama or health care reform. One lady
was debating with herself, in range of the microphone, whether Obama was
a Marxist, Socialist, or Communist. She settles on Marxist, because he
doesn't match all the points of the other two. When asked what those
points were, or what makes a Marxist, she wanders off to find someone to
tell her.

The rest is even stranger, as people with printouts try to poke holes in
"The Health Care Bill". They quote section, paragraph, and line numbers
of one of the many versions of the bill, but manage to cut short most of
what the line says. The shining example was "This tax is not a tax..."
which sounds outrageous, but the line reads more like "This tax is not a
tax for the purposes of determining, via total taxes paid, how much
something costs."

Debate would be lovely, but the video isn't debate. It is funny though.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 03:05:04 -0400, Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:33:51 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Well, given you can find idiots in places like Florida that actually 
>>> state things like this:
>>>
>>> "Obama is a Marxist... What's a Marxist anyway?", and be seriously 
>>> apposed to what they don't even fracking know the definition of...
>>>
>> 
>> Surely Marxist/Communist is just a generic insult from the right?
>> 
>
>That is a quote from someone in the video.
>

Ah! That shows how much I have learned from these newsgroups :)

>>> http://www.youtube.com/v/2wLYgbS8HeA&hl=en&fs=1&
>> 
>> I could not view it 
>

I still can't see it, all I get is a popup asking if I want to download a
shockwave flash object. <Grrr!>

>Guy with video camera goes out to a Teabag Rally, and asks people to

What's a Teabag Rally?

>describe what they have against Obama or health care reform. One lady
>was debating with herself, in range of the microphone, whether Obama was
>a Marxist, Socialist, or Communist. She settles on Marxist, because he
>doesn't match all the points of the other two. When asked what those
>points were, or what makes a Marxist, she wanders off to find someone to
>tell her.
>

Well at least she has an opinion LOL

>The rest is even stranger, as people with printouts try to poke holes in
>"The Health Care Bill". They quote section, paragraph, and line numbers
>of one of the many versions of the bill, but manage to cut short most of
>what the line says. 

Don't a lot of people do that with your constitution as well? Especially when
talking about the Second Amendment.

>The shining example was "This tax is not a tax..."
>which sounds outrageous, but the line reads more like "This tax is not a
>tax for the purposes of determining, via total taxes paid, how much
>something costs."

Let me guess. A lawyer made that one up or an accountant :)
>
>Debate would be lovely, but the video isn't debate. It is funny though.

I'm loosing my sense of humour when it comes to politics, nowadays :(
(But not my fecking vocabulary ;) )

Thanks, Sabrina. You're up late or early.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 03:05:04 -0400, Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:
> 
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:33:51 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, given you can find idiots in places like Florida that actually 
>>>> state things like this:
>>>>
>>>> "Obama is a Marxist... What's a Marxist anyway?", and be seriously 
>>>> apposed to what they don't even fracking know the definition of...
>>>>
>>> Surely Marxist/Communist is just a generic insult from the right?
>>>
>> That is a quote from someone in the video.
>>
> 
> Ah! That shows how much I have learned from these newsgroups :)
> 
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/v/2wLYgbS8HeA&hl=en&fs=1&
>>> I could not view it 
> 
> I still can't see it, all I get is a popup asking if I want to download a
> shockwave flash object. <Grrr!>
> 
>> Guy with video camera goes out to a Teabag Rally, and asks people to
> 
> What's a Teabag Rally?
> 

Someone's bright idea of political satire. Some people who are/were
against increasing government spending thought they would hold a modern
day Tea Party. Mimicking the Boston Tea Party, only this time there was
too much Samuel Adams beer and not enough of the politician. At some
later point, someone suggesting mailing tea bags to Washington. And with
outsiders looking on at why they would un-ironically associate their
movement with tea bags, the name just stuck.

>> describe what they have against Obama or health care reform. One lady
>> was debating with herself, in range of the microphone, whether Obama was
>> a Marxist, Socialist, or Communist. She settles on Marxist, because he
>> doesn't match all the points of the other two. When asked what those
>> points were, or what makes a Marxist, she wanders off to find someone to
>> tell her.
>>
> 
> Well at least she has an opinion LOL
> 

 . . . that's a good way of looking at it.

>> The rest is even stranger, as people with printouts try to poke holes in
>> "The Health Care Bill". They quote section, paragraph, and line numbers
>> of one of the many versions of the bill, but manage to cut short most of
>> what the line says. 
> 
> Don't a lot of people do that with your constitution as well? Especially when
> talking about the Second Amendment.
> 

Most of the time, the legal folks argue about the meaning of a few
commas. But yes, there are folks on both sides of that issue that insert
strategic ellipsis to make the words parse the way they want them to.

Completely off topic,

>> The shining example was "This tax is not a tax..."
>> which sounds outrageous, but the line reads more like "This tax is not a
>> tax for the purposes of determining, via total taxes paid, how much
>> something costs."
> 
> Let me guess. A lawyer made that one up or an accountant :)

I suspect so. It makes sense, otherwise some brilliant accountant would
just apply the tax constantly, like continuous compound interest. Call
the fee 10% of what ever tax you pay, and you paid 100 units in taxes.
So the fee is 10 units, but now you have paid 110 in taxes, so the fee
is really 11 units, but now you have . . . and ending up with (e^0.1 -
1)% needing to be paid.

>> Debate would be lovely, but the video isn't debate. It is funny though.
> 
> I'm loosing my sense of humour when it comes to politics, nowadays :(
> (But not my fecking vocabulary ;) )
> 

I have to find humor in it, it would be too depressing otherwise. I mean
if people, on both sides of these issues, really do believe everything
they hear from a few people who talk loudly, and do not even attempt to
research what they are handed as facts, it would just ruin any hope I
could have for the coming generations.

On the other hand, if that is really how people behave, I posit that the
health care bill is so (insert personal feelings here) that everyone
must (protest/support) it by sending $10 US currency to Sabrina Kilian.
This is a must, and will guarantee that the bill (does/doesn't) pass.
Please, think of the (children/budget/future generations).

> Thanks, Sabrina. You're up late or early.

Both.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 08:52:59 -0400, Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 08:52:59 -0400, Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:

>> What's a Teabag Rally?
>> 
>
>Someone's bright idea of political satire. Some people who are/were
>against increasing government spending thought they would hold a modern
>day Tea Party. Mimicking the Boston Tea Party, only this time there was
>too much Samuel Adams beer and not enough of the politician. At some
>later point, someone suggesting mailing tea bags to Washington. And with
>outsiders looking on at why they would un-ironically associate their
>movement with tea bags, the name just stuck.
>

Actually I like it :)
No Taxation without grumbling! ;)

 
>> Well at least she has an opinion LOL
>> 
>
> . . . that's a good way of looking at it.
>

I try to look on the bright side of life.

[sings]
Some things in life are bad,


>> Don't a lot of people do that with your constitution as well? Especially when
>> talking about the Second Amendment.
>> 
>
>Most of the time, the legal folks argue about the meaning of a few
>commas. But yes, there are folks on both sides of that issue that insert
>strategic ellipsis to make the words parse the way they want them to.
>
>Completely off topic,

This is the place for it, ye ken.

>> Let me guess. A lawyer made that one up or an accountant :)
>
>I suspect so. It makes sense, otherwise some brilliant accountant would
>just apply the tax constantly, like continuous compound interest. Call
>the fee 10% of what ever tax you pay, and you paid 100 units in taxes.
>So the fee is 10 units, but now you have paid 110 in taxes, so the fee
>is really 11 units, but now you have . . . and ending up with (e^0.1 -
>1)% needing to be paid.
>

Makes sense to me ;)

>> I'm loosing my sense of humour when it comes to politics, nowadays :(
>> (But not my fecking vocabulary ;) )
>> 
>
>I have to find humor in it, it would be too depressing otherwise. I mean
>if people, on both sides of these issues, really do believe everything
>they hear from a few people who talk loudly, and do not even attempt to
>research what they are handed as facts, it would just ruin any hope I
>could have for the coming generations.
>
>On the other hand, if that is really how people behave, I posit that the
>health care bill is so (insert personal feelings here) that everyone
>must (protest/support) it by sending $10 US currency to Sabrina Kilian.
>This is a must, and will guarantee that the bill (does/doesn't) pass.
>Please, think of the (children/budget/future generations).
>

Well, if you can get to that crock of gold I hid before Jim does then take USD
10 worth as my contribution to keeping the "land of the free" the home of the
healthy. <g>

>> Thanks, Sabrina. You're up late or early.

>Both.

Me too I was having breakfast with the toothache fairy :(
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Don't a lot of people do that with your constitution as well? Especially when
> talking about the Second Amendment.

Not really. The biggest debate is over the fact that it's poorly worded. 
People argue over whether the wording means

"Because we need an army, people can carry firearms"
vs
"People can carry firearms in order to be in the army."

I.e., the argument is over whether you need to be in the army to carry 
firearms, and it's not worded in a way to make that clear.

>> The shining example was "This tax is not a tax..."
>> which sounds outrageous, but the line reads more like "This tax is not a
>> tax for the purposes of determining, via total taxes paid, how much
>> something costs."
> 
> Let me guess. A lawyer made that one up or an accountant :)

It's basically talking about whether you can charge others for the taxes. 
I.e., if it's like VAT (where you pass it along to the consumer) or whether 
it's like payroll (where your payroll costs don't go directly to the price 
of the product).

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I.e., the argument is over whether you need to be in the army to carry 
> firearms, and it's not worded in a way to make that clear.

  And of course *changing* it to make it unambiguous is a big no-no?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I.e., the argument is over whether you need to be in the army to carry 
>> firearms, and it's not worded in a way to make that clear.
> 
>   And of course *changing* it to make it unambiguous is a big no-no?

Not at all - that's what a constitutional amendment would do. It's just 
intentionally difficult. It takes something like 2/3rds of the federal 
legislators to vote for it, and then also 3/4ths of the states to also 
agree. http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/constamend.htm is a 
good summary. Note that there's a part in the constitution that talks about 
how to change the constitution. Many people credit that (in part) with the 
longevity of the government here.

It's the job of the Supreme Court to decide what ambiguous laws mean w.r.t. 
the federal Constitution. And there, there are two schools of thought. One 
is that it should be interpreted the way the original authors meant, while 
the other is that it should be interpreted in a way that makes more sense 
nowadays. So, for a simple example, the constitution says the federal 
government gets to regulate ships and trade on the open sea. Makes sense, as 
the sea isn't owned by any specific state. Then people invented airplanes. 
Are airplanes like ships, to be regulated by the federal government? Or are 
airplanes completely private, as they are unmentioned in the constitution. 
You can see how it might make sense either way. If it needs to be changed, 
then the legislators should change it, is the thought.

With the fire arms, it's more like "everyone carried guns back then, so we 
should go with what the original authors meant" vs "simply having guns 
doesn't make you able to fight an army, so the phrase should mean an actual 
army."

Unfortunately (in this case at least), the Supreme Court tends to listen to 
only the very specific arguments of the specific case and tries to avoid 
making any sweeping decisions. As a fictional example, if the court case is 
about freedom of expression for students in schools, they might decide that 
since the student was chanting lyrics from a song as a protest, that's 
copyright violation, and freedom of expression doesn't include copyright 
violation. Which of course completely ignores the question of whether in 
general schools are allowed to punish students for chanting protests on 
school grounds.

Since the supreme court's decisions have the force of law (in a default sort 
of way), there's no need for legislature to change the law if they like how 
the supreme court decided. There's really no upside to it for a typical 
politician (as opposed to an honest, principled politician), as they'd 
simply be exposing themselves to the ire of the public in order to make a 
law something that is already a law. No politician in favor of allowing 
abortions is going to try to pass a law enshrining the right to have an 
abortion in law, since the supreme court already laid out the circumstances 
of that and every pro-life nut case[1] would vote the politician out next 
election.

The lower courts also decide on ambiguous laws. For example, is a pregnant 
woman allowed to drive by herself in the car pool lane? How about a hearse 
with a dead body in the back? Etc.

The layer below the federal supreme court has a handful of different courts 
(called the federal circuit courts, because they used to actually travel 
around from city to city in the horse/steam train days), and when one of 
them decides one way on a subject, and the other decides the other way, the 
supreme court usually gets involved.

I hope that helps clarify.



[1] Which is to say, everyone where preventing abortions is more important 
to them than any other possible political feature. Not that all pro-life 
people are nut cases.
-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 09:03:21 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> Don't a lot of people do that with your constitution as well? Especially when
>> talking about the Second Amendment.
>
>Not really. 

In what way? My understanding as an outsider is that the two sides interpret
your second amendment to be what they want it to mean by abbreviating it so that
it implies that any citizen can carry a firearm, hence they are or can be in a
militia (private or public) or by interpreting "well regulated militia" to mean
an army and "bear arms" meaning to carry firearms for service to the state.

>The biggest debate is over the fact that it's poorly worded. 
>People argue over whether the wording means
>
>"Because we need an army, people can carry firearms"
>vs
>"People can carry firearms in order to be in the army."
>
>I.e., the argument is over whether you need to be in the army to carry 
>firearms, and it's not worded in a way to make that clear.
>

Well at the time America had a distrust of standing armies, I believe. As did
Britain not that long before.

>>> The shining example was "This tax is not a tax..."
>>> which sounds outrageous, but the line reads more like "This tax is not a
>>> tax for the purposes of determining, via total taxes paid, how much
>>> something costs."
>> 
>> Let me guess. A lawyer made that one up or an accountant :)
>
>It's basically talking about whether you can charge others for the taxes. 
>I.e., if it's like VAT (where you pass it along to the consumer) or whether 
>it's like payroll (where your payroll costs don't go directly to the price 
>of the product).

Yes it is quite succinctly put. (I was just joshing the legal profession.)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message