I would argue that "hate crime" laws are immoral. I am glad you brought that up because the people who promote "hate crime" laws are a subset of the group that likes to argue that you can't legislate morality.
OK, now apply that to the post I replied to where the poster implies that an entire region needs to be forced to accept something socially. Exactly how are you going to force them?
The answer is that force is not an effective method of dealing with the problem and is likely to actually make the problem worse. I would argue that attempts to use force have made the problem worse.
It has always been the government's responsibility to arbitrate morality. That's what government does. But the morality that government arbitrates is behavior, not thought. You seem to be under the impression that you cannot legislate morality. However, that is not true. All laws are an attempt to legislate morality.Any law which makes something that is not immoral illegal is a bad law. On the other hand, it is completely impossible to legislate what people think (well, ok, it is possible to legislate it, just impossible to enforce such legislation)..
What regulation that allowed viable competition was removed? As far as I am aware, both cable providers and telephone providers have been regulated as local monopolies for almost as long as the former has existed and since before I was born for the latter. Unless someone else is allowed to run the cabling/fiber there can be no real competition. The fact that there are no more than two options just about everywhere is a product of regulation, not a product of the removal of regulation.
The south, as a touchstone example, while forced to integrate has never been forced to accept it socially.
How, exactly, do you "force" someone to accept something socially? Since by the definition of "socially", as I understand it to apply to this post, is that it is composed of what people choose to think. You can force people to act in a particular manner by applying negative reinforcement to those who do not act that way. How do you force people to think in a particular manner, since for the most part you only know what people think when they tell you?
I agree that the BIOS writers were stupid for doing this. I also agree that there was no good reason for the firmware to be parsing these strings, although I have to disagree with the summary. There are many reasons for the firmware to be parsing these strings. They are all bad reasons from the perspective of anybody but Microsoft (and even there, probably not once someone thinks the whole thing through), nevertheless there are many reasons to do this. I am quite sure that at least one person intended to claim that it was done as an additional security feature above and beyond the basic UEFI specs.
What I find interesting is that everyone just goes along with Obama granting waivers to the requirements of this law, even though there is no legal basis for such waivers. The law has no provision written into it (or into any other law that I have heard of) providing an option for states to opt out of the mandates set out in the law. Apparently laws are now optional if the President decides that they should be.
Most people who are not buying health insurance can afford to do so, yet decide not to anyway, so they will not be receiving any subsidies.
Most employers will only face those fines if the state they are in sets up an insurance exchange and their employees get insurance on those state set up exchanges. If on the other hand the state does not set up the exchange and leaves it to the federal government to set up the exchange for their state the employer will not be fined for not providing health insurance and the employee who buys health insurance from the exchange will not receive subsidies for the cost of their health insurance (the Senate version--which is the one that was passed--explicitly did this in an attempt to force states to set up the exchanges).
As someone else points out, considering that the costs of buying health insurance have already risen as a result of the minimal number of Obamacare mandates which have gone into effect, what are you smoking that makes you think as the regulations get even more restrictive costs will go down?
That is no longer true. In the U.S., there is a tax on not buying health insurance that is scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2014. The only way to avoid this tax is to do something that will probably cost more than the tax, so most of those effected will almost certainly choose to pay the tax.
Actually, it is a state school which is restricting them. I am curious as to whether this would stand up to a first amendment challenge. Since this involves "credentialed" journalists, who presumably receive free access to the games rather than having to purchase tickets, it certainly might withstand such a challenge.
It depends on how you define "right" and "left" wing. According to the traditional definition, the choice is between someone who wants to nationalize all business and tell people what they can do in every facet of their life on the far left all the way to someone who doesn't want to nationalize businesses but wants to tell them what to make, how much of it to make and how much to charge for it and wants to tell people what they can do in every facet of their lives on the far right. From the perspective of most of those who call themselves "conservative" in the U.S., there is barely a fingers worth of difference between what Europe calls the "far left" and what it calls the "far right". And from that same American "conservative" perspective Romney was farther towards being on that political spectrum than most are comfortable with and Obama is squarely on it (and they don't really care if you call his position on that line "left" or "right").
Except there is a key difference between these two cases. In the Jimmy Saville case, the paedophile worked for the BBC and the BBC covered up his paedophilia while he was using his job working for them to gain access to children to abuse. As far as I have heard, Lord McAlpine never worked for the BBC or was directly involved in their oversight. This story makes matters worse. It almost looks like a, "Yeah, we covered up child sexual abuse, but look these people over here did it too. Don't pay attention to our failure to protect children, look at them."
That was my thought. You bought a Sony product and are surprised when they screw you over? I thought that was why people bought Sony, to be screwed over.
So, your glad to hear about someone who convinces me that Global Warming Alarmists are just a bunch of control freaks who have grabbed on to Global Warming as the latest scare tactic to try and control how I live my life, but don't actually believe in it? By the way, all of the scientists I have heard promoting AGW behave the same way.
If you do not live as if you believe what you say, why would you expect anyone else to believe what you say?
If people like the OP were trying to convince people to change their lifestyles voluntarily it would be one thing, but they are trying to convince people to force others to change their lifestyles. Yet the people who are trying to convince us of this haven't even changed their lifestyles according to what they are claiming others should be forced to live.
The car dealer franchise laws began in California w/Reagan helping a buddy's business. Soon Bush did similar in TX, then lobbyists picked up the ball and rolled it to the other states.
Wow, that took a long time for a second state to pick up on it. I would have thought that the lobbyists would have pushed it through a lot faster than that. Ronald Reagan was governor of California from 1967 to 1975. George W. Bush did not become governor of Texas until 1995.
The fact of the matter is that by 1956, 20 states had auto franchise laws, so your whole argument is just so much bs.
Except that currently the way pricing is structured, I don't actually know what the price of two cars from different manufacturers are until I go to a dealer for each one and spend several hours haggling over the price. So manufacturers don't really compete with each other over price. They compete over much more intangible properties, properties that are subjective and thus able to be influenced by effective marketing campaigns. For the most part, the Chevy dealer does not compete with the Ford dealer, by the time most people start to think about what dealer to visit they have already chosen what brand they are going to buy.
Bush started with a surplus and left with a trillion dollar deficit.
Sorry, that is pure bs. If Bush started with a surplus, that would mean that there was a year when U.S. national debt went down. Yet, if you look at the records you discover that U.S. national debt has increased every year since 1949.
Slashdot Mirror
And your point is?
I would argue that "hate crime" laws are immoral. I am glad you brought that up because the people who promote "hate crime" laws are a subset of the group that likes to argue that you can't legislate morality.
OK, now apply that to the post I replied to where the poster implies that an entire region needs to be forced to accept something socially. Exactly how are you going to force them?
The answer is that force is not an effective method of dealing with the problem and is likely to actually make the problem worse. I would argue that attempts to use force have made the problem worse.
It has always been the government's responsibility to arbitrate morality. That's what government does. But the morality that government arbitrates is behavior, not thought. You seem to be under the impression that you cannot legislate morality. However, that is not true. All laws are an attempt to legislate morality.Any law which makes something that is not immoral illegal is a bad law. On the other hand, it is completely impossible to legislate what people think (well, ok, it is possible to legislate it, just impossible to enforce such legislation)..
What regulation that allowed viable competition was removed? As far as I am aware, both cable providers and telephone providers have been regulated as local monopolies for almost as long as the former has existed and since before I was born for the latter. Unless someone else is allowed to run the cabling/fiber there can be no real competition. The fact that there are no more than two options just about everywhere is a product of regulation, not a product of the removal of regulation.
The south, as a touchstone example, while forced to integrate has never been forced to accept it socially.
How, exactly, do you "force" someone to accept something socially? Since by the definition of "socially", as I understand it to apply to this post, is that it is composed of what people choose to think. You can force people to act in a particular manner by applying negative reinforcement to those who do not act that way. How do you force people to think in a particular manner, since for the most part you only know what people think when they tell you?
I agree that the BIOS writers were stupid for doing this. I also agree that there was no good reason for the firmware to be parsing these strings, although I have to disagree with the summary. There are many reasons for the firmware to be parsing these strings. They are all bad reasons from the perspective of anybody but Microsoft (and even there, probably not once someone thinks the whole thing through), nevertheless there are many reasons to do this. I am quite sure that at least one person intended to claim that it was done as an additional security feature above and beyond the basic UEFI specs.
That's a great idea. Someone who wrote a virus to boot before the OS would never think to tell UEFI that it was the Windows Boot Manager. /s
I have no idea, but that seems to be what the poster I was replying to was implying. Otherwise their entire post was irelevant.
So, you are saying this lawsuit is merely payback for his opposition to Obama?
Well, you could look at Massachusetts experience with a similar program.
What I find interesting is that everyone just goes along with Obama granting waivers to the requirements of this law, even though there is no legal basis for such waivers. The law has no provision written into it (or into any other law that I have heard of) providing an option for states to opt out of the mandates set out in the law. Apparently laws are now optional if the President decides that they should be.
Most people who are not buying health insurance can afford to do so, yet decide not to anyway, so they will not be receiving any subsidies.
Most employers will only face those fines if the state they are in sets up an insurance exchange and their employees get insurance on those state set up exchanges. If on the other hand the state does not set up the exchange and leaves it to the federal government to set up the exchange for their state the employer will not be fined for not providing health insurance and the employee who buys health insurance from the exchange will not receive subsidies for the cost of their health insurance (the Senate version--which is the one that was passed--explicitly did this in an attempt to force states to set up the exchanges).
As someone else points out, considering that the costs of buying health insurance have already risen as a result of the minimal number of Obamacare mandates which have gone into effect, what are you smoking that makes you think as the regulations get even more restrictive costs will go down?
That is no longer true. In the U.S., there is a tax on not buying health insurance that is scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2014. The only way to avoid this tax is to do something that will probably cost more than the tax, so most of those effected will almost certainly choose to pay the tax.
Actually, it is a state school which is restricting them. I am curious as to whether this would stand up to a first amendment challenge. Since this involves "credentialed" journalists, who presumably receive free access to the games rather than having to purchase tickets, it certainly might withstand such a challenge.
It depends on how you define "right" and "left" wing. According to the traditional definition, the choice is between someone who wants to nationalize all business and tell people what they can do in every facet of their life on the far left all the way to someone who doesn't want to nationalize businesses but wants to tell them what to make, how much of it to make and how much to charge for it and wants to tell people what they can do in every facet of their lives on the far right. From the perspective of most of those who call themselves "conservative" in the U.S., there is barely a fingers worth of difference between what Europe calls the "far left" and what it calls the "far right". And from that same American "conservative" perspective Romney was farther towards being on that political spectrum than most are comfortable with and Obama is squarely on it (and they don't really care if you call his position on that line "left" or "right").
Except there is a key difference between these two cases. In the Jimmy Saville case, the paedophile worked for the BBC and the BBC covered up his paedophilia while he was using his job working for them to gain access to children to abuse. As far as I have heard, Lord McAlpine never worked for the BBC or was directly involved in their oversight. This story makes matters worse. It almost looks like a, "Yeah, we covered up child sexual abuse, but look these people over here did it too. Don't pay attention to our failure to protect children, look at them."
This is Microsoft. They are testing it as we speak. What did you think users were for?
That was my thought. You bought a Sony product and are surprised when they screw you over? I thought that was why people bought Sony, to be screwed over.
So, your glad to hear about someone who convinces me that Global Warming Alarmists are just a bunch of control freaks who have grabbed on to Global Warming as the latest scare tactic to try and control how I live my life, but don't actually believe in it? By the way, all of the scientists I have heard promoting AGW behave the same way.
If you do not live as if you believe what you say, why would you expect anyone else to believe what you say?
If people like the OP were trying to convince people to change their lifestyles voluntarily it would be one thing, but they are trying to convince people to force others to change their lifestyles. Yet the people who are trying to convince us of this haven't even changed their lifestyles according to what they are claiming others should be forced to live.
What part of what I said was an accusation? Or are you saying that there aren't that many people who don't care?
The car dealer franchise laws began in California w/Reagan helping a buddy's business. Soon Bush did similar in TX, then lobbyists picked up the ball and rolled it to the other states.
Wow, that took a long time for a second state to pick up on it. I would have thought that the lobbyists would have pushed it through a lot faster than that. Ronald Reagan was governor of California from 1967 to 1975. George W. Bush did not become governor of Texas until 1995.
The fact of the matter is that by 1956, 20 states had auto franchise laws, so your whole argument is just so much bs.
Except that currently the way pricing is structured, I don't actually know what the price of two cars from different manufacturers are until I go to a dealer for each one and spend several hours haggling over the price. So manufacturers don't really compete with each other over price. They compete over much more intangible properties, properties that are subjective and thus able to be influenced by effective marketing campaigns. For the most part, the Chevy dealer does not compete with the Ford dealer, by the time most people start to think about what dealer to visit they have already chosen what brand they are going to buy.
Bush started with a surplus and left with a trillion dollar deficit.
Sorry, that is pure bs. If Bush started with a surplus, that would mean that there was a year when U.S. national debt went down. Yet, if you look at the records you discover that U.S. national debt has increased every year since 1949.