 | | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
<snip> (...) Definitely agree here. And if you think I've got an opinion on this, you should hear my wife's comments when she sees someone else's unbelted kids in a moving car. In some ways I'm glad the other car is moving, so she can't completely (...) (25 years ago, 21-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer
|
|
(...) Umm, huh? I thought you were implying that competition was good because it inspired better growth. Is what you really mean to say "We should be allowed to compete with other browsers, but once we're winning, the other guys should just give in (...) (25 years ago, 21-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer
|
|
(...) And of course the MS track record at making things faster or less buggy is SO good. Sorry for the sarcasm, I like MS, and I'm a stockholder but I still find your statement laughable. (25 years ago, 21-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <schnip!> (...) If I may expand on what Larry has said here; In some US states, drivers are supposed to ensure that they themselves, and their passengers are belted at all times while the vehicle (...) (25 years ago, 21-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) It is mandatory, on pain of losing federal highway funds (a case of using the purse power to get a state to pass a law instead of passing a federal law. I personally feel it's wrong to do that, but I digress). What is not mandatory is the (...) (25 years ago, 21-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) to (...) Sure--just like biological evolution. Dave! (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer
|
|
(...) But that's a good thing :) The great thing about IE is that it can be repurposed. Anyone can slap on their own UI (AOL, webTV, NeoPlanet) and decide what features to implement or not to implemnt. If you understand COM and how IE is (...) (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) But would it work if some participants refused to recognize the validity of evolution? Steve (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) And that would mean that 'Socialist' is just a descriptive label, without much specific meaning. Sort of like calling the leader of a country 'President' doesn't mean the country is a Democracy based on inalienable human-rights and personal (...) (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) So if I read this correctly, the wearing of seatbelts is not mandatory in all US states? This is mandatory in all states and territories of Australia (putting on my seatbelt is second nature to me when I get in the car). I can't understand (...) (25 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Wow, "goes in waves" is right!!!
|
|
Well, things got quite quiet quickly (1). The oscillations in traffic here make even the stock market price gyrations look tame. Pretty amazing. No commentary needed or expected, I'm just spouting. Did a big factoring run today but I am STILL not (...) (25 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | The 10 Cs in schools (was Mormon...)
|
|
I know this is a big snip but I want to make room for my rant... (...) And therein lies the flaw with Democracy. I have done nothing to deserve the penalty of being a subject of the majority rule. If 51% of the people insist that 2+2=5, that doesn't (...) (25 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Due Process
|
|
Lindsay, (...) Yes, indeed! I am at AEI right now, working on a funky Auburn Hills public Safety building, it looks like a house, divided up into a police and fire station, on a 120 degree angle! (...) Hmmm... there are many...100 or so, ah here it (...) (25 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) Technological superiority would not necessarily guarantee victory in a "Red Dawn" type scenario - whether the aggressor were foreign or our own gov't. Afghanistan/Russia demonstrates that (Viet Nam also). If a people have the will to fight (...) (25 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) There's also that "hostile foreign Powers" thing too, considering that the early United States simply didn't have the money to maintain a large standing army or navy, and wouldn't until the 1850s. Until the 1830s, invasion from Canada was a (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) And my point is only this, don't read anything else into it: If this one example of historic law had a major influence, where others didn't, I don't think it's wrong. The constitution forbids legislating in favor of or against any religion - (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
Law just changed. A seat belt infraction, if spotted, is enough reason for you to get pulled over in Michigan now. Sorry about that (I think it may have been March 1 that it changed) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) I'll again go back to what was written in the federalist papers. I plowed through them a few months back, so it's a fairly recent memory... I can't deny that there may have been other motives than the final check but that was the biggie, by a (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) Well said. Would that everyone were as reasonable as you. My theory is that in many issues we see convolution being used as a tool to usurp, because proponents on one side or another fear that a straight up and down question might: - resolve (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) I've not been there, so I can't say what the circumstances are. But if they're posted in a way that implies primacy, rather than as one of many examples of laws, that's wrong. (...) Feel free to do so on your private property, but there's a (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
