You do understand that segregation in the South pre-Civil Rights Act existed by force of law, not by choice of business? The segregation on the buses that Rosa Parks protested against wasn't there because the bus companies wanted it. On the contrary, the bus companies wanted to run integrated buses because it made more business sense, but a law was passed requiring them to segregate their buses.
You do not need to legislate that businesses serve all people, those that will take money from anyone who wants to buy their services will be more successful than those who refuse to do business with certain persons for reasons not related to business. For example, in the 50s, many white owned night clubs would only book white acts and only allow whites in. Amazingly, the most successful night clubs at the time were black owned night clubs that would allow anybody in who wanted to pay (and after one booked Buddy Holly because they thought he was black, would book any act that appealed to their audience).
Personally, I do not know any conservatives that want big government in any flavor at all. All the conservatives I know have seen that the more that people strive to get big government to control big business, the more big business controls government.
However, the exception to anti-trust laws that allowed local governments to grant local monopolies was passed by Congress. If Congress had not passed a specific law granting local governments the authority to grant exceptions to anti-trust laws, you would not see cable monopolies, just as if the Federal government had not stepped in, there would never have been telephone monopolies.
Cable monopolies were encouraged by the Federal government. If the government at all levels would stop promoting telecom monopolies, I believe that competition would arise. Especially if people were to actively campaign for it on a local level.
It was federal law that gave the communities the power to do that in the first place.
I believe that that federal law has been revoked or allowed to expire. If your local government is preventing competition from arising in your area, you should campaign to not only stop that, but to get the local government to actively recruit competition.
Net Neutrality means that to you. What makes you think that is what the FCC means by it? Even if the FCC means that now, how long do you think they will stick to just that? Have you seen the bill Congress proposed to make "Net Neutrality" law? It was several hundred pages long.
Until the US does something to curb this blatant BS that Fox, Rush L. and the other ultra conservative groups put out, the US will continue to spiral into hell and eliminate the dream that every American lives for.
So you seem to be suggesting that the government infringe upon the freedom of speech of those you disagree with? Why shouldn't MSNBC have a similar disclaimer? How about the Washington Post? Have you heard of a mailing list called "Journolist"? If not, you should look into it. It was a group of "journalists" at various mainstream "news" organizations who exchanged emails about how to control what stories were actually reported on.
Do you really think that is all that will happen when the government starts regulating the Internet? As to where people get these "crazy conspiracy theory notions" of what Net Neutrality is, they get these ideas from the fact that when Congress wrote a Net Neutrality law it was several hundred pages long. Or when Congress wrote a law to lower health care costs, it didn't contain any provisions to actually lower costs. Just because you mean one thing when you say Net Neutrality, doesn't mean that's what the government is implementing when it says Net Neutrality.
I believe that what the majority of the people who are all for Net Neutrality on slashdot mean is largely a good thing, I just don't believe that is what the people in government mean when they say Net Neutrality.
Are you saying it protected me more than it protected my bank? Think what would have happened to my bank (or your bank, or any bank) if FDIC didn't exist. Ever heard of runs on banks?
schools are a government program not a government regulation
The road you drive on
not a government regulation at all
The Internet I'm typing on
not a government regulation
Social Security
not a government regulation
Medicare
not a government regulation
Food Stamps
not a government regulationbr
I did not ask about government programs, but about government regulations. What corporate interest is being regulated by any of these which supposedly favored consumers more than they favored entrenched incumbents in some industry?
Well, then instead of campaigning for "net neutrality" (whatever the government decides that means), you should be campaigning for the government to break up the high speed Internet monopolies.
What makes you think the FCC is trying to protect consumers? Can you give me an example of government regulation that did not end up favoring entrenched incumbents in the industry more than potential competitors or consumers?
I take it that there was nothing that anyone would go to for any reason in between where you grew up and the closest big town, or even somewhere in the rural area not between you and the big town? I grew up on what was essentially the border between a metropolis and a very rural area. There were a lot of interesting destinations in the rural area that were a convenient drive from where I grew up.
Equal means "the same". For example, 2+2=4 that is 2+2 represents the same thing as 4. All people are different, Joe is not the same as Sue. Different people have different potential but all people have the same value (they are people, that is their value), not the "same value to society". I don't care what value people have to society, people have value because they are people.
I am confused where you got the idea that I discriminate. All I did was question whether it was "provable fact that I am NOT less than you". That is not provable fact. It is something I believe, but it is not provable fact.
No - but I think the potential he does have is no less valuable to society as a whole, and you do realize that you're argument is only one incredibly small step away from eugenics don't you ?
Ah, so we are talking about value then. I am not sure how an argument that starts out that "all people are of equal value" can ever get to supporting eugenics. I merely pointed out that not all people have equal potential, even though all people have equal value.
You seem to have missed the qualifier "almost". In addition, as someone else points out, isn't it odd that many traditional, ancient rituals suggest that girls and boys reach "adulthood" at 12 and 13 respectively, ages at which today almost all children have passed puberty. This suggests that the data used in that (and other studies that show similar things) is either anomalous over that time period or subject to bad methodology (the suggestion the other poster makes is that until recently medicine did a poor job of identifying puberty).
The reason the Catholic Church started the prohibition against priests being married had nothing to do with marrying young girls. It was put into place because of certain Church offices (and the accompanying political power) being passed down from father to son across several generations.
Because Obama hates the British. Americans in general like the British. Supposedly, Obama holds a grudge against the British because his Kenyan grandfather was abused by the British after the Mau Mau uprising. I am not sure I believe that, but Obama has definitely shown that he has an antipathy towards the British (returning the Winston Churchill bust--not so much the returning as the timing, inapropriate courtesy gifts to the PM and the Queen).
Since it's a provable fact that I am NOT less than you, and nobody else is either
How would you go about proving that? I believe that all people are of equal value, but I would be hard pressed to prove that as a fact. In truth, I think it would be trivial to "prove" that some people are of less value than others (for certain definitions of "value").
There is no evidence of how old Mary was when Jesus was born. The only thing we know is that she was betrothed to Joseph but not yet married when Jesus was conceived. The youngest she could have been when Jesus was conceived according to rabbinical sources on marriage age was 12 , but we have no basis to conclude that she was that young. Additionally, those rabbinical sources are somewhat later than first century, so we do not know that they applied at that time. Everything I have seen concerning first century marriage practices suggests that Mary was between 14 and 18 when Jesus was conceived (with as old as 20 being possible but improbable).
Actually, my experience is that for a single individual, over time, Dragon Naturally does become very good. The problem is that that is a result of it learning what that specific person is saying. It is not terribly good if you keep switching people.
Catholicism has a history of marrying off prepubescents until very recently, it still happens in Africa. It is a problem with all religious forms of marriage as far as I know.
According to everything I can find, the earliest age that Catholicism ever allowed a girl to marry at was 12, which while very young is almost never prepubescent. So please provide a reference to your claim.
Well, considering that BP is incorporated in the UK, it seems unlikely that this law would affect any libel suits brought against them (as the plaintif would just get the courts to require the BP office to pay the judgement).
Slashdot Mirror
You do understand that segregation in the South pre-Civil Rights Act existed by force of law, not by choice of business? The segregation on the buses that Rosa Parks protested against wasn't there because the bus companies wanted it. On the contrary, the bus companies wanted to run integrated buses because it made more business sense, but a law was passed requiring them to segregate their buses.
You do not need to legislate that businesses serve all people, those that will take money from anyone who wants to buy their services will be more successful than those who refuse to do business with certain persons for reasons not related to business. For example, in the 50s, many white owned night clubs would only book white acts and only allow whites in. Amazingly, the most successful night clubs at the time were black owned night clubs that would allow anybody in who wanted to pay (and after one booked Buddy Holly because they thought he was black, would book any act that appealed to their audience).
Personally, I do not know any conservatives that want big government in any flavor at all. All the conservatives I know have seen that the more that people strive to get big government to control big business, the more big business controls government.
However, the exception to anti-trust laws that allowed local governments to grant local monopolies was passed by Congress. If Congress had not passed a specific law granting local governments the authority to grant exceptions to anti-trust laws, you would not see cable monopolies, just as if the Federal government had not stepped in, there would never have been telephone monopolies.
Cable monopolies were encouraged by the Federal government. If the government at all levels would stop promoting telecom monopolies, I believe that competition would arise. Especially if people were to actively campaign for it on a local level.
It was federal law that gave the communities the power to do that in the first place.
I believe that that federal law has been revoked or allowed to expire. If your local government is preventing competition from arising in your area, you should campaign to not only stop that, but to get the local government to actively recruit competition.
And you really believe that unelected bureaucrats will better represent our interests?
Net Neutrality means that to you. What makes you think that is what the FCC means by it? Even if the FCC means that now, how long do you think they will stick to just that? Have you seen the bill Congress proposed to make "Net Neutrality" law? It was several hundred pages long.
Until the US does something to curb this blatant BS that Fox, Rush L. and the other ultra conservative groups put out, the US will continue to spiral into hell and eliminate the dream that every American lives for.
So you seem to be suggesting that the government infringe upon the freedom of speech of those you disagree with? Why shouldn't MSNBC have a similar disclaimer? How about the Washington Post? Have you heard of a mailing list called "Journolist"? If not, you should look into it. It was a group of "journalists" at various mainstream "news" organizations who exchanged emails about how to control what stories were actually reported on.
Do you really think that is all that will happen when the government starts regulating the Internet? As to where people get these "crazy conspiracy theory notions" of what Net Neutrality is, they get these ideas from the fact that when Congress wrote a Net Neutrality law it was several hundred pages long. Or when Congress wrote a law to lower health care costs, it didn't contain any provisions to actually lower costs. Just because you mean one thing when you say Net Neutrality, doesn't mean that's what the government is implementing when it says Net Neutrality.
I believe that what the majority of the people who are all for Net Neutrality on slashdot mean is largely a good thing, I just don't believe that is what the people in government mean when they say Net Neutrality.
Are you saying it protected me more than it protected my bank? Think what would have happened to my bank (or your bank, or any bank) if FDIC didn't exist. Ever heard of runs on banks?
Gee, I don't know . . .
Vaccination Programs
heavily favor vaccine manufacturers
School Lunches
maybe
Schools, in general
schools are a government program not a government regulation
The road you drive on
not a government regulation at all
The Internet I'm typing on
not a government regulation
Social Security
not a government regulation
Medicare
not a government regulation
Food Stamps
not a government regulationbr I did not ask about government programs, but about government regulations. What corporate interest is being regulated by any of these which supposedly favored consumers more than they favored entrenched incumbents in some industry?
How about the FCC's action on Comcasts' interference with BitTorrent traffic?
Was that about protecting the consumer or gaining more power?
Well, then instead of campaigning for "net neutrality" (whatever the government decides that means), you should be campaigning for the government to break up the high speed Internet monopolies.
What makes you think the FCC is trying to protect consumers? Can you give me an example of government regulation that did not end up favoring entrenched incumbents in the industry more than potential competitors or consumers?
I take it that there was nothing that anyone would go to for any reason in between where you grew up and the closest big town, or even somewhere in the rural area not between you and the big town? I grew up on what was essentially the border between a metropolis and a very rural area. There were a lot of interesting destinations in the rural area that were a convenient drive from where I grew up.
Equal means "the same". For example, 2+2=4 that is 2+2 represents the same thing as 4. All people are different, Joe is not the same as Sue. Different people have different potential but all people have the same value (they are people, that is their value), not the "same value to society". I don't care what value people have to society, people have value because they are people.
I am confused where you got the idea that I discriminate. All I did was question whether it was "provable fact that I am NOT less than you". That is not provable fact. It is something I believe, but it is not provable fact.
No - but I think the potential he does have is no less valuable to society as a whole, and you do realize that you're argument is only one incredibly small step away from eugenics don't you ?
Ah, so we are talking about value then. I am not sure how an argument that starts out that "all people are of equal value" can ever get to supporting eugenics. I merely pointed out that not all people have equal potential, even though all people have equal value.
You are right, there is no more evidence that Jesus existed than that Socrates or Alexander the Great existed (of course there is no less either).
You seem to have missed the qualifier "almost". In addition, as someone else points out, isn't it odd that many traditional, ancient rituals suggest that girls and boys reach "adulthood" at 12 and 13 respectively, ages at which today almost all children have passed puberty. This suggests that the data used in that (and other studies that show similar things) is either anomalous over that time period or subject to bad methodology (the suggestion the other poster makes is that until recently medicine did a poor job of identifying puberty).
The reason the Catholic Church started the prohibition against priests being married had nothing to do with marrying young girls. It was put into place because of certain Church offices (and the accompanying political power) being passed down from father to son across several generations.
Really, you think that someone suffering from Down's syndrome has the same potential as someone with normal genetics?
Because Obama hates the British. Americans in general like the British. Supposedly, Obama holds a grudge against the British because his Kenyan grandfather was abused by the British after the Mau Mau uprising. I am not sure I believe that, but Obama has definitely shown that he has an antipathy towards the British (returning the Winston Churchill bust--not so much the returning as the timing, inapropriate courtesy gifts to the PM and the Queen).
Since it's a provable fact that I am NOT less than you, and nobody else is either
How would you go about proving that? I believe that all people are of equal value, but I would be hard pressed to prove that as a fact. In truth, I think it would be trivial to "prove" that some people are of less value than others (for certain definitions of "value").
There is no evidence of how old Mary was when Jesus was born. The only thing we know is that she was betrothed to Joseph but not yet married when Jesus was conceived. The youngest she could have been when Jesus was conceived according to rabbinical sources on marriage age was 12 , but we have no basis to conclude that she was that young. Additionally, those rabbinical sources are somewhat later than first century, so we do not know that they applied at that time. Everything I have seen concerning first century marriage practices suggests that Mary was between 14 and 18 when Jesus was conceived (with as old as 20 being possible but improbable).
Actually, my experience is that for a single individual, over time, Dragon Naturally does become very good. The problem is that that is a result of it learning what that specific person is saying. It is not terribly good if you keep switching people.
Catholicism has a history of marrying off prepubescents until very recently, it still happens in Africa. It is a problem with all religious forms of marriage as far as I know.
According to everything I can find, the earliest age that Catholicism ever allowed a girl to marry at was 12, which while very young is almost never prepubescent. So please provide a reference to your claim.
Well, considering that BP is incorporated in the UK, it seems unlikely that this law would affect any libel suits brought against them (as the plaintif would just get the courts to require the BP office to pay the judgement).