I completely agree! The only thing I recall learning from a Deitel & Deitel book was a deep appreciation for authors who could quickly get to the point.

That is quite possibly the most incoherent rant I have ever read. I'm not really sure what type of development the author is talking about as he backflips from Python to kernels, and PostgreSQL to schedulers, but I simply couldn't find a hint of sense from beginning to end. I think he got a bit heavy into the Tequila he mentioned, passed out, and his Rhesus Monkey banged out the article through hyperactive dung flinging. It's the only explanation that makes sense.

The main difference between a republic and a democracy is this:

A democracy is a form of government where unlimited and absolute power belongs to The Majority (or in other words, as I described it earlier, democracy is mob rule). In a democracy, minorities have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. This is true of both direct democracies and representative democracies. The inevitable outcome of a democracy is tyranny at the hand of The Majority.

On the contrary, a republic is a system of government that seeks to control The Majority strictly in order to protect the rights of the individual. It prescribes a constitutionally limited and representational government, whereas a democracy does not.

I know to some, the terms "republic" and "democracy" seem synonymous, but they are not. I believe that particular muddying of the waters has been intentional over the years.

The real core and defining difference between these two forms of government is the formation of a ratified constitution through a constitutional convention, which limits the power of both the government AND The Majority.

You cannot limit your understanding of varying forms of government to a blurb in a dictionary. There are a lot of books about the history surrounding the formation of the Constitution of The United States of America that will give you a lot of insight into various forms of government, and why the framers of the Constitution did NOT want a democracy. "The Federalist" is probably a good one to start with.

There is a distinct form of government called a democracy. It is basically "mob rules". We certainly are not that, though we have gotten closer as the years between the 18th and 21st century have marched on.

It couldn't be that Utah chose to teach that the U.S. is a republic because it IS. No, it has to be because the word "democracy" looks like the word "democrat." Those wacky conservatives! Always teaching truth for the wrong reasons!

Anybody who uses the terms "right wing," "left wing," "Republicans," or "Democrats," prior to unleashing some political invective instantly loses all credibility with me. Considering the current state of the U.S. government, attributing negative tendencies or blame for our myriad problems on one political stance or party (especially when that attribute is lying) tells me that you are an ideologue who is either blinded by devotion, or simply not paying attention.

I was interested in the Nexus One and would have bought one in a second, even at the full, unsubsidized price, had it been available on Verizon. I had service on T-Mobile before and wouldn't use them again no matter what kind of phone they sold. Their data speeds are just way too slow in my area. This is the same reason I never bought an iPhone as well.

So, at least in my case, the failure isn't that selling a phone online doesn't work, but rather that you can't buy a phone online and use it with whichever service provide you prefer.

I think you mean, "Hmm live with high taxes or live where people push their bias, instead of mine, into the school books..."

Even if it is blocked, you can use corkscrew to circumvent it.

I don't think dumbing things down, or communication is the problem, it is the politicizing of everything. I don't care if the moon IS going to crash in my driveway, killing my entire family, if the news comes from the mouth of a politician, then I'm damn well staying where I am out of spite if for no other reason.

That's the saddest thing I've ever heard. No, really it is. I'm sorry if that came across as sarcastic.

Personally, I think it is moronic to hate the right or the left, unless you are going to hate them both. In all relevant ways, they are essentially the same thing, and not understanding that just shows one isn't paying attention.

There was plenty of religious persecution in the early years of the U.S., so I'm not sure where you get the notion that culturally there was a mutual respect amongst highly diverse theologies. Absolutely, there were some people who were tolerant of other people's beliefs, but there were many who weren't; just like today.

Having read the article, the only thing mentioned regarding Christianity was that Texas wanted to teach that the U.S. was founded on Christian ideals, with liberty via, amongst other things, a free market being one of the goals, which it was. So, from the article, I'm afraid I'm not seeing the bald-faced lies you're speaking of.