Comment: Re:The Supremely Stupid Court (Score 1) 420
I was going to release my comments under "creative commons" license, but now I'm holding the copyrights close just so your comment remains valid.
|
|
I was going to release my comments under "creative commons" license, but now I'm holding the copyrights close just so your comment remains valid.
That was my first thought as well. Pretty simple solution to a problem.
What does Exchange do that Scalable OpenGroupware does not? SOGo:
Don't know about features, but it looks pretty interesting, thanks for the link! As for your question "What does Exchange do that Scalable OpenGroupware does not?", the answer seems to be in the release notes. For the past year every release notes that it is focused on "improved stability".
Despite having a history of being mind-numbingly stupidly designed - particularly in the versions that used the Jet engine for the data store - Exchange has been quite stable in recent years, at least in my experience. And if there's one thing you want in a "scalable groupware" it would be stability. There are very few cases where "thousands of users" and "stability issues" are acceptable bedfellows.
so then, how is it you know these people published anonymously...and exactly what it was they had published? seems it wasn't so anonymous.
Because they won.
The pipes in the walls are the radiator he's referring to.
Can this ridiculous debt be wiped out in bankruptcy, or is it exempted from bankruptcy proceedings? Even having to deal with a bankruptcy on your credit report for 7 years is pretty harsh for the violation he's found guilty of, but having your wages garnished for life is beyond the pale. Of course, that's what they were hoping for. They needed a poster-boy so nobody would ever reject a settlement offer and go to trial again. Spreading fear was their mission.
If anything I would say the Supreme Court and its lower branches have shown FAR more fidelity to the constitution than the other 2 branches, or the Member States, which often act as if the Constitution does not exist.
Well, yeah. But that's an extremely low hurdle. Kinda like being the fastest snail, or the best-tasting turd.
Which would mean there is an untapped market for their rejects. Replacing mandatory location-based public schools with publicly funded school vouchers would eliminate the problem of being trapped in a bad school.
Of course, this is no obstacle if you have plenty of money. You just pay for a private school without the vouchers. As a bonus, the absence of vouchers keeps the undesirable types out. As a double bonus, low-quality public schools provide a stream of poorly trained young adults that cannot gain employment above minimum wage. Helpful if you are a wealthy magnate of industry.
In my area there are only a few quality public schools. Most of the private schools cost about the same as public schools spend on a per-pupil basis, yet are widely perceived as providing a superior education. Thanks to No Child Left Behind parents could opt out of the worst public schools and receive an automatic transfer to a better school. Until this year that is. The Obama administration just exempted all of the states that failed to reach their NCLB targets from the law. So now I have to either send my kid to the failing school that we were recently zoned for, pony up for a private school (in addition to the funding I'm providing for the public schools) or move into a better school district. All so we can make sure those union jobs are not threatened. Nice. Oh, and so we can make sure that those crazy fundamentalists don't get to have their kids educated in a Christian school. Gotta make sure we roll out that boogie man to make sure to keep the partisans in line.
Wow, step away from the team red / team blue blinders. He didn't say anything about paranoid warmongering. He's talking about a Federal government freed from the bounds placed on it by its founding documents. This flag was planted firmly with the New Deal and the court-packing threats used to get approval from the Supreme Court for powers which clearly required constitutional amendments before laws could be enacted.
Fast forward to 2001 and you've got Bush pushing through the "Patriot Act", a law that wipes its tush with the constitution. A few years later you've got supposedly "liberal" president Obama doubling down on the "Patriot Act". We've got the Kelo decision saying that local governments can take your home and give it to shopping mall developers because shopping malls raise more tax revenue. Nice! We've got Gonzales v. Raich which says that the federal government can outlaw growing a plant in your own home under the commerce clause, because you theoretically could have bought or sold the plant across state lines. Of course, this decision relied on the WWII Wickard v. Filburn case that said the government can prevent you from growing food for yourself on your own land (under the theory that you would otherwise have to buy the food on the open market, which distorts interstate commerce).
Our current leadership doesn't seem to have much regard for constitutional restrictions in the area of war powers either, having attacked several countries without authorization from congress. Not that congress had enough of a sack to do anything about it. Well, other than Kucinich, who filed suit against the Libya attacks... love him or hate him, at least he stands up for what he believes in regardless of who's in power. Other than a couple of fringe cases like Kucinich and the Paul duo, Team Red and Team Blue are on the same page with regard to the irrelevance of the constitution, regardless of their rhetoric. They also seem to be on the same page with regard to your civil liberties and the war machine, regardless of their rhetoric. Oh sure, one guy over here will make a speech about gun rights, and another guy over there will make a speech about gay marriage, but when it comes down to it they all support the unfettered expansion of the powers of the federal government and only feign fealty to the constitution when it suits their purposes.
One advantage alcohol has is that it is relatively easy to control your dose - relatively easy, not completely easy. Most people binge drink when first learning and there are some dangerous situations created because of that. But if you pace your consumption, alcohol can be self limiting (you tend to pass out before drinking too much - unless you are really slamming the shots).
Heroin and cocaine have the disadvantage of requiring small controlled doses - the more pure they are, the more difficult it is to reliably deliver the correct dose. Of course, absent prohibition this problem would be easily solved. In some South American countries you can get cocaine in ground leaf form at the grocery store - used to make a morning "coffee". Apparently it makes a good wake-up drink, perhaps better than coffee. Presumably pretty much impossible to overdose on that. Heck, I hear that foreign dignitaries visiting Bolivia get a drink of mate de coca as a part of the official state dinner.
Please remain calm, it's no use both of us being hysterical at the same time.