If you live in America, you are living in a country run by people who have repeatedly stated that it is the duty of all christians to work towards being in a position to start Armageddon (or Armageddon, basically the apocalyptic battle at the end of the world). In addition to these statements, they have also expressed their own desire to trigger said battle.
Please provide a reference to that. As far as I know (and I have done some study on this) no major Christian denominations hold that Armageddon is something to be desired or promoted. Many Christians are convinced that Armageddon is just around the corner, but few see this as a good thing (except in so far as they see it as a pre-requisite to the return of Christ).
As far as the "Christian" right being every bit as terrifying as Muslims, when was the last time someone from the "christian" right sawed off someone's head...or flew an airliner into a building...or encouraged a teenager to blow themselves up?
Different strokes. Quadaffi is playing his games in the middle of fucking nowhere. Libya is not in the middle of a global strategic hot spot.
You have a strange definition of the"middle of fucking nowhere". Libya is as close to Israel as Iran is, and much closer to the members of the EU than Iran.
Otherwise--it presumably doesn't matter, since there is such absolutely massive pressure *not* to fire a nuke once you have one. The entire point of a nuke is it makes it basically impossible to engage in a war of aggression against your homeland.
When we tell Iran we don't want them to have them--we're really telling them we intend to invade them. Fairness or lack thereof has nothing to do with it. Do you seriously think Iran would launch at us? Even if they believe in 72 virgins, it would literally be the end of their world within 15 minutes.
CAPTCHA: deterred.
You are talking about a country run by people who have repeatedly stated that it is the duty of all muslims to work towards being in a position to start Armageddon (or Ragnarok, basically the apocalyptic battle at the end of the world). In addition to these statements, they have also expressed their own desire to trigger said battle. Exactly how does MAD deter people who wish to start an end of the world battle?
and several government ministers accidentally contravene them, often the very ministers that drafted them.
Your problem is that you seem to be under the impression that the minister who introduced the bill that became the law even read it, let alone actually drafted it. I am confident that just like in the U.S. the legislators don't as a general rule actually read the laws before they vote on them, let alone draft (or read) the laws that they propose.
because : http://www.livescience.com/technology/050201_cell_danger.html "cell phone distraction causes 2,600 deaths and 330,000 injuries in the United States every year, according to the journal's publisher, the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society."
There have been several studies that indicate that using a "hands free" device to talk on the cell phone does not significantly reduce the amount of distraction. All of the evidence I have seen indicates that it is talking on a cell phone that causes the problems, not holding the cell phone to talk.
The reason there are no competitors that offer cola sweetened with sugar is because of government imposed price supports for sugar. The U.S. government keeps the price of sugar in the U.S. significantly above the world price in order to protect U.S. sugar producers. The lack of a major company selling cola sweetened with actual sugar is not a market failure, but a product of government intervention in the market.
It's more of a "cost tax" than a "sin tax". The consumption of certain products (most obvious example: tobacco) has costs far beyond that of the production and selling of the item (consumer much more likely to die earlier and require expensive health treatment before he or she dies. Being coldly clinical for a moment: death has costs.
The problem with your logic is that several studies have shown that cigarette smokers actually cost society less in health care costs than non-smokers. Why? because they tend to die younger. Those who live longer tend to incur significantly more health care costs than those who die "young" (young is a relative term in this context).
The reason for these taxes is because politicians intend for people to perceive them as applying to "someone else", and hoping that the group that clearly pays them is small enough (and feels enough guilt) to not impact the votes in the next election. Reading your post, you appear to have fallen for this strategy.
Rewind back in time: Not too long ago the world was certain that food contained just a couple of nutrients (now thought of as being 'macro'nutrients). Protein, Fat and Carbohydrates. Food scientists believed that as long as you got enough of the proper balance of those 3 nutrients then you'd be a healthy, happy person.... Fast forward a few years. Food scientists now know that in addition to these macronutrients there were also micronutrients that were essential to human health (vitamins).
Please give a reference to a time when there were "food scientists" who were not familiar with the existence of vitamins. The term vitamin was first coined in 1906, but the idea behind that goes back to the ancient Egyptians. In the 1700's, scurvy was treated by feeding those suffering from it citrus fruits. The only reason why a knowledge of vitamins specifically (as opposed to foods high in certain necessary nutrients) wasn't known sooner was because the technology had not been developed to isolate vitamins. You have built an argument based on a theory that I do not believe is supported by the historical record.
Great, I already have enough trouble remembering where a feature I only use on rare occasions is when I switch from Ubuntu to Windows and back, now they are going to make the disconnect greater. Maybe it is time to start looking for another browser...one that works and looks the same no matter what OS I am running.
So the FCC has the power to regulate the Internet as the current Administration (whatever the current Administration is at any given time) sees fit? I see that ending well./s
The FAA must have specific guidelines as to what avionic policy it implements. Avionics is not quite the same as communication. I am not sure that Congress doesn't delegate entirely too much authority to the FAA, but even if the FAA is acceptable, that doesn't mean that a similar approach is acceptable for regulating communication. You seem to be saying that Congress has given the FCC authority to regulate communication via the Internet however it sees fit.
I am not quite sure which of my questions you were answering. You do not seem to answer the question as to what legal basis the FCC has to regulate the Internet.
Are you saying that the FCC has the authority because I'm not pissed off and calling to tell them they don't? That doesn't seem right because you seem to be saying that the FCC hasn't enforced net neutrality because I'm not pissed off and calling to tell them to enforce it. I'm still not clear what law gives them the authority and why it hasn't been referenced in a court case before now.
How is the FCC getting the authority in 2009 to implement a law passed in 1996? If the 1996 Telecommunications Act called for net neutrality, why is it only now being implemented? If it didn't, how is the FCC now getting the authority to implement it?
That article you reference is incomplee. It leaves out six years of earnings for the individual with a high school diploma (it calculates earnings starting at age 25, someone who enters the workforce right out of high school starts earning at 18 or 19). It does not factor in the cost of college tuition and student loans. And once one factors those in, one must factor the amount of money that can be invested for retirement and the interest it will earn.
Upon what legal basis does the FCC regulate the Internet? What law did Congress pass giving the FCC authority to regulate the Internet? Net neutrality is not something that should grow out of FCC regulations, it should result from a law passed by Congress.
I have some reservations about the Constitutionality of the Federal government regulating the Internet, but those are a matter of interpretation and their is an argument to made that the federal government does have the Constitutional authority to do so. However, even if one takes the position that the Federal government has the Constitutional authority to regulate the Internet, that regulation should grow out of explicit laws passed by Congress. As far as I know, no new laws regarding regulating the Internet have been passed by Congress recently, therefore I fail to see how the FCC can suddenly decide to enforce net neutrality. Either there is a law calling for net neutrality or there isn't. If there is such a law, why haven't people been arguing on the basis of it demanding the FCC take action. If there isn't such a law, where does the FCC suddenly come up with the authority to implement net neutrality.
If the FCC can find the authority out of existing laws to enforce net neutrality, they can find the authority to regulate content in other ways that would not be so nice.
Plumbers and electricians (good ones) should be well paid. A good plumber or electrician contributes more to society than most people with a bachelors degree. The same is true of many other careers that a college degree contributes nothing to. There are in addition many jobs where the employer wants someone with a college degree that the college degree adds no value for.
I recently read an article which compared the lifetime earnings of someone who earns an average amount with a high school degree versus someone who earns an average amount with a Bachelors degree. The conclusion was that when one factors in lost earnings and student loans, the person who got a job right out of high school will do better on average than someone who gets a Bachelors degree.
Just like sleeping with large numbers of the opposite sex does not make one straight,...
Wait, what?
There are many gays who have sex with people of the opposite sex. They call it being bisexual, but they are still gay if they have sex with people (or even a person) of the same sex.
How does a man act gay (have sex with other men) and not be gay?
It is real simple, if you are a man who has sex with other men, you are gay. If you are a man who doesn't have sex with other men, you are not gay.
The Democrat party is all about silencing the opposition.
Anyone who has paid any attention to politics in the past 9 years knows how ridiculous that statement is,
You mean the way that the Obama Administration prosecuted the members of the New Black Panther Party who were carrying weapons in front of a voting location and yelling racial slurs at whites who approached to vote (oversimplifying for brevity, if you are familiar with the case, you know what happened. If you aren't familiar with the case, why not?)? BTW for those who don't know, the Obama Administration dropped the charges when they were about to get a guilty verdict. If you aren't familiar with the case google "Black Panther voter intimidation" for the video.
If you aren't familiar with the Black Panther case, there is a good chance you also aren't familiar with why Van Jones was forced to resign or with why ACORN was dropped from working with the Census Bureau on the 2010 census (for ACORN google "ACORN video pimp")
O RLY? Do you realize how many individual artists ASCAP represents?
The majority of mainstream artists (or their publishers) are members of ASCAP, iTunes and Amazon are all about catering to mainstream culture.
That's because for the most part they have to join ASCAP to collect performance royalties. Do you really think those artists are just going to leave that money lying on the table? Just because they joined ASCAP to collect that money doesn't mean they support the positions taken by ASCAP.
As to the idea of some other marketplace replacing Itunes and Amazon,where is a start up going to come up with the money to pay the "performance fee" for demos of songs? You know where you go in and listen to a short clip for free to decide if you like the song enough to pay for it? ASCAP wants Itunes and Amazon to pay for that, do you really think that they won't pass that cost on to you?
Yeah, I know. But sometimes the taste is so much better than the "inorganic" food. I don't know what it is but organic fruit actually tastes like it should. Do a blind taste comparison between organic strawberries and the regular kind,
You know, I never thought of eating inorganic strawberries before, but you are right, organic strawberries taste much better (and they don't hurt my teeth as much). Those inorganic strawberries are hard!!
Sarcasm aside, the reason that you find "organic" produce tastier than other produce is because you are comparing locally grown "organic" produce to produce shipped from a distance. Sometime find someone who grows their own fruits and vegetables and compare them to the "organic" ones, you will find no difference (or possibly the non- "organic" locally grown may actually be tastier than the factory grown "organic" stuff).
The government completely dominates the people, there is little to no freedom, most of their population lives just above the subsistence level, yeah that sounds great.
Ok, so after killing off a significant fraction of their population and sustained interaction with outside cultures for only the second time in their history (the first time being the invasion and conquest by the Mongols) they are starting to adopt some of the habits of Western Civilization and making some advancements from the social state of several hundred years ago.
No thanks, I'll pass.
Slashdot Mirror
One thing to remember:
If you live in America, you are living in a country run by people who have repeatedly stated that it is the duty of all christians to work towards being in a position to start Armageddon (or Armageddon, basically the apocalyptic battle at the end of the world). In addition to these statements, they have also expressed their own desire to trigger said battle.
Please provide a reference to that. As far as I know (and I have done some study on this) no major Christian denominations hold that Armageddon is something to be desired or promoted. Many Christians are convinced that Armageddon is just around the corner, but few see this as a good thing (except in so far as they see it as a pre-requisite to the return of Christ).
As far as the "Christian" right being every bit as terrifying as Muslims, when was the last time someone from the "christian" right sawed off someone's head...or flew an airliner into a building...or encouraged a teenager to blow themselves up?
Different strokes. Quadaffi is playing his games in the middle of fucking nowhere. Libya is not in the middle of a global strategic hot spot.
You have a strange definition of the"middle of fucking nowhere". Libya is as close to Israel as Iran is, and much closer to the members of the EU than Iran.
Otherwise--it presumably doesn't matter, since there is such absolutely massive pressure *not* to fire a nuke once you have one. The entire point of a nuke is it makes it basically impossible to engage in a war of aggression against your homeland.
When we tell Iran we don't want them to have them--we're really telling them we intend to invade them. Fairness or lack thereof has nothing to do with it. Do you seriously think Iran would launch at us? Even if they believe in 72 virgins, it would literally be the end of their world within 15 minutes.
CAPTCHA: deterred.
You are talking about a country run by people who have repeatedly stated that it is the duty of all muslims to work towards being in a position to start Armageddon (or Ragnarok, basically the apocalyptic battle at the end of the world). In addition to these statements, they have also expressed their own desire to trigger said battle. Exactly how does MAD deter people who wish to start an end of the world battle?
and several government ministers accidentally contravene them, often the very ministers that drafted them.
Your problem is that you seem to be under the impression that the minister who introduced the bill that became the law even read it, let alone actually drafted it. I am confident that just like in the U.S. the legislators don't as a general rule actually read the laws before they vote on them, let alone draft (or read) the laws that they propose.
but I cannot hold a phone to my ear.
because : http://www.livescience.com/technology/050201_cell_danger.html "cell phone distraction causes 2,600 deaths and 330,000 injuries in the United States every year, according to the journal's publisher, the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society."
There have been several studies that indicate that using a "hands free" device to talk on the cell phone does not significantly reduce the amount of distraction. All of the evidence I have seen indicates that it is talking on a cell phone that causes the problems, not holding the cell phone to talk.
The reason there are no competitors that offer cola sweetened with sugar is because of government imposed price supports for sugar. The U.S. government keeps the price of sugar in the U.S. significantly above the world price in order to protect U.S. sugar producers. The lack of a major company selling cola sweetened with actual sugar is not a market failure, but a product of government intervention in the market.
It's more of a "cost tax" than a "sin tax". The consumption of certain products (most obvious example: tobacco) has costs far beyond that of the production and selling of the item (consumer much more likely to die earlier and require expensive health treatment before he or she dies. Being coldly clinical for a moment: death has costs.
The problem with your logic is that several studies have shown that cigarette smokers actually cost society less in health care costs than non-smokers. Why? because they tend to die younger. Those who live longer tend to incur significantly more health care costs than those who die "young" (young is a relative term in this context).
The reason for these taxes is because politicians intend for people to perceive them as applying to "someone else", and hoping that the group that clearly pays them is small enough (and feels enough guilt) to not impact the votes in the next election. Reading your post, you appear to have fallen for this strategy.
Rewind back in time: Not too long ago the world was certain that food contained just a couple of nutrients (now thought of as being 'macro'nutrients). Protein, Fat and Carbohydrates. Food scientists believed that as long as you got enough of the proper balance of those 3 nutrients then you'd be a healthy, happy person. ... Fast forward a few years. Food scientists now know that in addition to these macronutrients there were also micronutrients that were essential to human health (vitamins).
Please give a reference to a time when there were "food scientists" who were not familiar with the existence of vitamins. The term vitamin was first coined in 1906, but the idea behind that goes back to the ancient Egyptians. In the 1700's, scurvy was treated by feeding those suffering from it citrus fruits. The only reason why a knowledge of vitamins specifically (as opposed to foods high in certain necessary nutrients) wasn't known sooner was because the technology had not been developed to isolate vitamins. You have built an argument based on a theory that I do not believe is supported by the historical record.
Great, I already have enough trouble remembering where a feature I only use on rare occasions is when I switch from Ubuntu to Windows and back, now they are going to make the disconnect greater. Maybe it is time to start looking for another browser...one that works and looks the same no matter what OS I am running.
So the FCC has the power to regulate the Internet as the current Administration (whatever the current Administration is at any given time) sees fit? I see that ending well. /s
The FAA must have specific guidelines as to what avionic policy it implements. Avionics is not quite the same as communication. I am not sure that Congress doesn't delegate entirely too much authority to the FAA, but even if the FAA is acceptable, that doesn't mean that a similar approach is acceptable for regulating communication. You seem to be saying that Congress has given the FCC authority to regulate communication via the Internet however it sees fit.
I am not quite sure which of my questions you were answering. You do not seem to answer the question as to what legal basis the FCC has to regulate the Internet.
Are you saying that the FCC has the authority because I'm not pissed off and calling to tell them they don't? That doesn't seem right because you seem to be saying that the FCC hasn't enforced net neutrality because I'm not pissed off and calling to tell them to enforce it. I'm still not clear what law gives them the authority and why it hasn't been referenced in a court case before now.
How is the FCC getting the authority in 2009 to implement a law passed in 1996? If the 1996 Telecommunications Act called for net neutrality, why is it only now being implemented? If it didn't, how is the FCC now getting the authority to implement it?
That article you reference is incomplee. It leaves out six years of earnings for the individual with a high school diploma (it calculates earnings starting at age 25, someone who enters the workforce right out of high school starts earning at 18 or 19). It does not factor in the cost of college tuition and student loans. And once one factors those in, one must factor the amount of money that can be invested for retirement and the interest it will earn.
Upon what legal basis does the FCC regulate the Internet? What law did Congress pass giving the FCC authority to regulate the Internet? Net neutrality is not something that should grow out of FCC regulations, it should result from a law passed by Congress.
I have some reservations about the Constitutionality of the Federal government regulating the Internet, but those are a matter of interpretation and their is an argument to made that the federal government does have the Constitutional authority to do so. However, even if one takes the position that the Federal government has the Constitutional authority to regulate the Internet, that regulation should grow out of explicit laws passed by Congress. As far as I know, no new laws regarding regulating the Internet have been passed by Congress recently, therefore I fail to see how the FCC can suddenly decide to enforce net neutrality. Either there is a law calling for net neutrality or there isn't. If there is such a law, why haven't people been arguing on the basis of it demanding the FCC take action. If there isn't such a law, where does the FCC suddenly come up with the authority to implement net neutrality.
If the FCC can find the authority out of existing laws to enforce net neutrality, they can find the authority to regulate content in other ways that would not be so nice.
Plumbers and electricians (good ones) should be well paid. A good plumber or electrician contributes more to society than most people with a bachelors degree. The same is true of many other careers that a college degree contributes nothing to. There are in addition many jobs where the employer wants someone with a college degree that the college degree adds no value for.
I recently read an article which compared the lifetime earnings of someone who earns an average amount with a high school degree versus someone who earns an average amount with a Bachelors degree. The conclusion was that when one factors in lost earnings and student loans, the person who got a job right out of high school will do better on average than someone who gets a Bachelors degree.
Just like sleeping with large numbers of the opposite sex does not make one straight, ...
Wait, what?
There are many gays who have sex with people of the opposite sex. They call it being bisexual, but they are still gay if they have sex with people (or even a person) of the same sex.
Some act gay but aren't, .
How does a man act gay (have sex with other men) and not be gay?
It is real simple, if you are a man who has sex with other men, you are gay. If you are a man who doesn't have sex with other men, you are not gay.
Yes, but check what he said about Christianity in private: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_beliefs#Private_statements
It is clear from this that his public praise of Christianity was for the consumption of people whose support he desired, but that he did not agree with the sentiments expressed.
The Democrat party is all about silencing the opposition.
Anyone who has paid any attention to politics in the past 9 years knows how ridiculous that statement is,
You mean the way that the Obama Administration prosecuted the members of the New Black Panther Party who were carrying weapons in front of a voting location and yelling racial slurs at whites who approached to vote (oversimplifying for brevity, if you are familiar with the case, you know what happened. If you aren't familiar with the case, why not?)? BTW for those who don't know, the Obama Administration dropped the charges when they were about to get a guilty verdict. If you aren't familiar with the case google "Black Panther voter intimidation" for the video.
If you aren't familiar with the Black Panther case, there is a good chance you also aren't familiar with why Van Jones was forced to resign or with why ACORN was dropped from working with the Census Bureau on the 2010 census (for ACORN google "ACORN video pimp")
O RLY? Do you realize how many individual artists ASCAP represents?
The majority of mainstream artists (or their publishers) are members of ASCAP, iTunes and Amazon are all about catering to mainstream culture.
That's because for the most part they have to join ASCAP to collect performance royalties. Do you really think those artists are just going to leave that money lying on the table? Just because they joined ASCAP to collect that money doesn't mean they support the positions taken by ASCAP.
As to the idea of some other marketplace replacing Itunes and Amazon,where is a start up going to come up with the money to pay the "performance fee" for demos of songs? You know where you go in and listen to a short clip for free to decide if you like the song enough to pay for it? ASCAP wants Itunes and Amazon to pay for that, do you really think that they won't pass that cost on to you?
Yeah, I know. But sometimes the taste is so much better than the "inorganic" food. I don't know what it is but organic fruit actually tastes like it should. Do a blind taste comparison between organic strawberries and the regular kind,
You know, I never thought of eating inorganic strawberries before, but you are right, organic strawberries taste much better (and they don't hurt my teeth as much). Those inorganic strawberries are hard!!
Sarcasm aside, the reason that you find "organic" produce tastier than other produce is because you are comparing locally grown "organic" produce to produce shipped from a distance. Sometime find someone who grows their own fruits and vegetables and compare them to the "organic" ones, you will find no difference (or possibly the non- "organic" locally grown may actually be tastier than the factory grown "organic" stuff).
Oh good, another reason to refuse to get an e-book reader.
Thanks for that link. I suspect there would be problems (the hardware and software involved are very idiosyncratic), but I will check it out.
The government completely dominates the people, there is little to no freedom, most of their population lives just above the subsistence level, yeah that sounds great.
Ok, so after killing off a significant fraction of their population and sustained interaction with outside cultures for only the second time in their history (the first time being the invasion and conquest by the Mongols) they are starting to adopt some of the habits of Western Civilization and making some advancements from the social state of several hundred years ago.
No thanks, I'll pass.