This bill was made law in 2008. That means it was written and passed by the people who are running Congress right now (the Democratic Party controlled Congress in 2008 and in case you didn't know laws like this one originate in Congress).)
So, how do you propose getting regulations that do not favor the corporations? Look how well government regulations worked in off shore oil drilling. The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico didn't happen because we didn't have the correct regulations, it happened because the regulations we have weren't enforced.
And by the way, the reason people can't see that if you remove government power the corporations takeover is because they have seen that as government power has increased so has corporate power. People have been saying my whole life, "Corporations are too powerful, we need this law to reign them in." That law gets passed and lo and behold a few years later, the corporations that law was supposed to reign in are even more powerful and when we ask why, it turns out it is because of that law that was supposed to reign them in.
That is why you are for "net neutrality", you think that is what they will pass. The reason I am opposed to "net neutrality" is because I know that isn't what they will pass. If we are really lucky, it will contain a provision that says something similar to what you think it should, but the bill will contain so many exceptions and special provisions and other weasel words that it will actually end up requiring ISPs to prioritize and de-prioritize and even block traffic based upon either its source or its destination. Oh, and the law won't specify what traffic is to be so regulated, that will be left up to a board of bureaucrats to decide.
When someone tells me that I have to take a certain action because of X, and people say that X is insufficient reason to take said action. Then along comes a new theory and these people tell me that because of this new theory I need to take the action they had been recommending all along, I, for one, will be very skeptical.
No, you don't think theism is wrong, you think it is false. However, let's test your tolerance a little further. Is it ok if someone believes that it is their right to kill their wife if she makes them unhappy?
So basically you are suggesting that we make marriage be something that involves any two people? I don't see any reason to apply a word with perfectly understood meaning (a particular type of relationship between a man and woman) to a new social construction. Why don't we develop a new term for this new idea, like maybe "domestic partnership"?
Because Congress set it up that way. Congress wanted people to forget that they passed that massive spending bill before the elections this fall and they wanted the economic stimulus that they expected from it to kick in just before the elections. Of course neither of those things worked out for them.
You miss the perfect example, the "art work" the janitor cleaned up and threw away because they thought it was the trash left by the people who attended the exhibit's opening party.
Actually there are stem cell treatments that work (for example, bone marrow transplants). Of course you don't have to go to some special "stem cell clinic" to get those treatments.
You are correct, but if the company does not take it down in response to a DMCA takedown notice, it then loses its immunity to being sued for copyright infringement on this particular item.
Yes, response to a DMCA takedown notice is voluntary. However, if an ISP does not respond to a DMCA takedown notice, they can then be sued for copyright violation.
Alright smartass, the right to marry to the person they love. A person who is of sound mind, age and judgment to consent to a marriage.
and of the opposite sex, just like everybody else. Nobody else is allowed to marry someone of the same sex either. There are a lot of people who are not allowed to marry the person they would like.
It is worse than just the alternation of "scientists say coffee is bad", "scientists say coffee is good." It's the fact that every so often you will see something like this: "I did studies on X for 20 years and none of them showed how bad it was. Finally I was able to design a study that showed that X was every bit as bad as I always knew it was." BTW that is very close to the quote I saw one guy make when he reported the findings of his latest study.
What is so difficult is that they then say, "You know all those government regulations we have been telling you that you needed for your own good all those years but you opposed? Well this means that we were right and you need those regulations to keep from drowning next year when the ice caps melt. Well, no, we didn't know about Global Warming when we told you that you needed these regulations, but we knew you needed them and now that we have discovered the greenhouse effect from CO2 we know why you needed those regulations."
Heterosexuals can only marry someone of the opposite sex who is of legal age, not married to someone else or related to them and who is willing to marry them. Heterosexuals are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex even if they want to. They are also not allowed to marry their sibling. So, they can't marry anyone they want.
Marriage...gays can marry according to the same rules that apply to everyone else.
Adoption...you may have a point there. I am not familiar enough with that process to be sure, but that fits with what I know.
Military service...gays are allowed to serve in the military, they just need to be discrete about having sex while they are in the service. One can argue as to whether that is good or bad. I will not defend current policy at this time.
Marriage?
The right of an expectation to not be lynched by homophobes?
Gays are allowed to marry according to the same rules that apply to everyone else. It is just as much a crime to kill homosexuals as it is to kill anyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
This bill was made law in 2008. That means it was written and passed by the people who are running Congress right now (the Democratic Party controlled Congress in 2008 and in case you didn't know laws like this one originate in Congress).)
Please educate yourself on what kind of law would be passed under the guise of "net neutrality". It's not that hard.
So, how do you propose getting regulations that do not favor the corporations? Look how well government regulations worked in off shore oil drilling. The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico didn't happen because we didn't have the correct regulations, it happened because the regulations we have weren't enforced.
And by the way, the reason people can't see that if you remove government power the corporations takeover is because they have seen that as government power has increased so has corporate power. People have been saying my whole life, "Corporations are too powerful, we need this law to reign them in." That law gets passed and lo and behold a few years later, the corporations that law was supposed to reign in are even more powerful and when we ask why, it turns out it is because of that law that was supposed to reign them in.
That is why you are for "net neutrality", you think that is what they will pass. The reason I am opposed to "net neutrality" is because I know that isn't what they will pass. If we are really lucky, it will contain a provision that says something similar to what you think it should, but the bill will contain so many exceptions and special provisions and other weasel words that it will actually end up requiring ISPs to prioritize and de-prioritize and even block traffic based upon either its source or its destination. Oh, and the law won't specify what traffic is to be so regulated, that will be left up to a board of bureaucrats to decide.
When someone tells me that I have to take a certain action because of X, and people say that X is insufficient reason to take said action. Then along comes a new theory and these people tell me that because of this new theory I need to take the action they had been recommending all along, I, for one, will be very skeptical.
No, you don't think theism is wrong, you think it is false. However, let's test your tolerance a little further. Is it ok if someone believes that it is their right to kill their wife if she makes them unhappy?
So basically you are suggesting that we make marriage be something that involves any two people? I don't see any reason to apply a word with perfectly understood meaning (a particular type of relationship between a man and woman) to a new social construction. Why don't we develop a new term for this new idea, like maybe "domestic partnership"?
Because Congress set it up that way. Congress wanted people to forget that they passed that massive spending bill before the elections this fall and they wanted the economic stimulus that they expected from it to kick in just before the elections. Of course neither of those things worked out for them.
You miss the perfect example, the "art work" the janitor cleaned up and threw away because they thought it was the trash left by the people who attended the exhibit's opening party.
Actually there are stem cell treatments that work (for example, bone marrow transplants). Of course you don't have to go to some special "stem cell clinic" to get those treatments.
You are correct, but if the company does not take it down in response to a DMCA takedown notice, it then loses its immunity to being sued for copyright infringement on this particular item.
Yes, response to a DMCA takedown notice is voluntary. However, if an ISP does not respond to a DMCA takedown notice, they can then be sued for copyright violation.
Tolerance is allowing something you believe is wrong. You don't believe that anything is wrong except for believing that something is wrong.
I am arguing that same sex marriage is not a civil rights issue.
Alright smartass, the right to marry to the person they love. A person who is of sound mind, age and judgment to consent to a marriage.
and of the opposite sex, just like everybody else. Nobody else is allowed to marry someone of the same sex either. There are a lot of people who are not allowed to marry the person they would like.
No, what has changed is that too many people have started using science for political purposes, including many scientists.
It is worse than just the alternation of "scientists say coffee is bad", "scientists say coffee is good." It's the fact that every so often you will see something like this: "I did studies on X for 20 years and none of them showed how bad it was. Finally I was able to design a study that showed that X was every bit as bad as I always knew it was." BTW that is very close to the quote I saw one guy make when he reported the findings of his latest study.
What is so difficult is that they then say, "You know all those government regulations we have been telling you that you needed for your own good all those years but you opposed? Well this means that we were right and you need those regulations to keep from drowning next year when the ice caps melt. Well, no, we didn't know about Global Warming when we told you that you needed these regulations, but we knew you needed them and now that we have discovered the greenhouse effect from CO2 we know why you needed those regulations."
You are right. I am aware of how homosexuals are treated differently. It is acceptable for them to be much more obnoxious than straights.
Heterosexuals are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex any more than homosexuals are.
In what way are homosexuals treated differently then everyone else in society?
Heterosexuals can only marry someone of the opposite sex who is of legal age, not married to someone else or related to them and who is willing to marry them. Heterosexuals are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex even if they want to. They are also not allowed to marry their sibling. So, they can't marry anyone they want.
regardless of your background, heritage, sex, religion, sexual preference, you should be allowed to get married.
You are, according to the same rules that apply to everyone else.
Marriage...gays can marry according to the same rules that apply to everyone else.
Adoption...you may have a point there. I am not familiar enough with that process to be sure, but that fits with what I know.
Military service...gays are allowed to serve in the military, they just need to be discrete about having sex while they are in the service. One can argue as to whether that is good or bad. I will not defend current policy at this time.
Marriage? The right of an expectation to not be lynched by homophobes?
Gays are allowed to marry according to the same rules that apply to everyone else.
It is just as much a crime to kill homosexuals as it is to kill anyone else.