How do the right wing christian fundamentalists in the Tea Party square letting people without medical insurance die (they cheered this idea at a recent political meeting) with christian values?
Because they pay attention to the part of the bible that says thou shall not steal.
Call me a partisan nutjob but I can't see any possible legitimate argument to vote pro-racism or anti-gay rights, unless you consider "I'm racist/homophobic as fuck" to be a legitimate argument.
True, but it's trickier than that. Is voting against affirmative action, considered pro-racism? Some claim it is. Some claim voting for affirmative action is pro-racism. Some people consider mandatory sentencing guidelines racist, some don't. Some people consider a volunteer army innately racist, some don't. Similarly, homophobia is obviously nuts... but should homosexuals be treated as a legally protected minority? Reasonable people may differ, but that doesn't stop the accusations of homophobia from flying.
There's many problems with direct democracy that have been pointed out already, but I wanted to address this: If you want this to succeed and have any legs, do not associate it with the 'occupy' movement. It may not be obvious to those directly involved in the movement, but it is quickly getting some very negative associations among the majority of the country. It will prove to be anathema to those politicians who supported it.
I think it's nonsense to group global warming skeptics in with the anti-cellphone, anti-vaccine nutjobs. The global warming skeptics might be wrong, but you can have severe doubts about the current state of climate knowledge without being a anti-science paranoid like the anti-vaccine nuts.
Why? There are vast numbers of qualified, unemployed teachers in every state. When districts are actively laying off teachers and have been for many years, the only thing more teaching degrees would cause is more unemployed teachers. Besides, I don't think a teaching degree is much of an indication that a person is a particularly talented teacher.
There may be a bit more of a need for engineers, but I suspect the real need is in more scientific and rational trained people in all fields.
Jealous that he has friends and relatives that actually give some thought about him? Getting cash or checks for a gift is as much an insult as anything else.
I think you may be within rights to use GPL3 for the bits that YOU add; but I don't think you can take away the GPL2 licensing on the parts that already exist. That gets tricky, though.
If you think they might have taken GPL'd source closed for which they don't possess the copyright, then you complain, then sue. But you aren't going to get anywhere if you're going on a hunch. For one thing, you don't have standing. You need to find somebody who has donated code to the project, back when it was GPL'd, and who hadn't assigned away their copyright. If you can find that, it's a slam-dunk case; otherwise, it's just speculation.
Yes, it's legal to abandon the GPLed version but nobody has answered (so far) the fact that a certain percentage of the code WAS distributed under the GPL and whilst the GPL has a provision for allowing code to be reused in closed-source software, it only permits that specific piece of re-use to not be GPLed when it is substantially different from the GPLed version.
That's not true at all. If you wrote the code, or have the copyright assigned to you, you can change licenses to and from GPL at will. You can GPL a utility you wrote, and then close it and refuse to give the source code to anyone, without changing a single bit of code. The only limit GPL puts on you is that you can't limit somebody else from redistributing the source that was out there during the time the code was GPL'd.
That would hardly register in the noise compared to the alienation caused by Mozilla's own stupid decisions over the last year.
True, but they're at the point where people's backs are being broken with each new straw Mozilla adds. Even minor foul-ups are hurting them significantly, because it's just one more thing...,
Sometimes running things through google search and clicking the result is the fastest way to get somewhere. I have a ton of semi-regularly visited sites that I always search on to visit. Typing 'aicn' into google and clicking is faster and less error-prone than typing 'aintitcool.com' or navigating a hierarchy of bookmarks.
You can get to gmail with just one click from the google home page... but that's if you're sitting on the home page. Typing 'gmail' and clicking the result always works, and so it can be delegated to reflexive muscle memory
You think Iran is a serious opponent? We could destroy their armies and topple their government in two weeks, losing only a few thousand casualties, just like we did Iraq. The expensive and difficult part is rebuilding/occupying their country afterwards, if we choose to do so.
Google didn't really detract from Apple's brand loyalty, and nobody has any brand loyalty to Facebook; they use it despite their near-universal irritation with the company.
I think MS has been reforming their image, some. Their gaming consoles have helped... I don't think they're nearly as reviled now as they were in the days of windows '95. They're too big and slow and clumsy to be 'cool', but they can still manage 'adequate'.
This issue hasn't been studied enough for anybody to say with confidence that Fracking is poisoning our water supply or not, and certainly not enough to say that fracking is causing earthquakes.
Regardless, most people have already made up their minds one way or the other, and are now emotionally invested in proving their prejudice correct.
This will probably taint or bias all future studies, and neither side will trust any evidence that the 'enemy' produces. This will continue until we (1) eventually realize that we've been fracking for generations and are still doing ok or (2) die, poisoned, in a massive earthquake.
This isn't quite as bad as most of the comments make it sound. They are using the email addresses of their customers as a suppression file. This is not the same as renting out the names.
They mention two cases:
1. They are sending out an email advertising campaign, and use the file of customer's email addresses to delete customers off the file, so existing customers don't get an email advertising their service. I can understand with the irritation at a company sending unsolicited email, but the suppression of customers isn't a bad thing.
2. They are sending an email to their own customers, but use the list of customers that requested no emails be sent to prune those names out of the file. That is certainly a good thing.
Both of those tasks can't be done by a vendor without providing a list of email addresses, and this is nearly always done by an outside vendor. The problem is the email vendor broke the privacy agreement, or somebody stole the names, or whatever. How can they honor a request to not email a certain customer without matching that customer's email up against their mail file?
Neither do most Christians. It's really just a fringe group that believes that, even though it gets brought up all the time when discussing Christians.
"Support" is a pretty vague term. If he simply meant he would advocate for them, that's no problem. There also would be no problem if by 'support' he meant removing barriers and red-tape. Support doesn't have to be in the form of (perhaps unconstitutional or unethical) loan guarantees, grants, and subsidies.
Slashdot Mirror
How do the right wing christian fundamentalists in the Tea Party square letting people without medical insurance die (they cheered this idea at a recent political meeting) with christian values?
Because they pay attention to the part of the bible that says thou shall not steal.
Investigate who gives more of their income away to charity, conservatives or liberals. It will change your opinion if you're honest with yourself.
Call me a partisan nutjob but I can't see any possible legitimate argument to vote pro-racism or anti-gay rights, unless you consider "I'm racist/homophobic as fuck" to be a legitimate argument.
True, but it's trickier than that. Is voting against affirmative action, considered pro-racism? Some claim it is. Some claim voting for affirmative action is pro-racism. Some people consider mandatory sentencing guidelines racist, some don't. Some people consider a volunteer army innately racist, some don't. Similarly, homophobia is obviously nuts... but should homosexuals be treated as a legally protected minority? Reasonable people may differ, but that doesn't stop the accusations of homophobia from flying.
Not in the slightest. In capitalism the right man for the job is always the cheapest one
No, in capitalism, the right man for the job is the most profitable. This may be the cheapest man, this may be the most expensive man.
Is the 'Occupy' branding appropriate?
There's many problems with direct democracy that have been pointed out already, but I wanted to address this: If you want this to succeed and have any legs, do not associate it with the 'occupy' movement. It may not be obvious to those directly involved in the movement, but it is quickly getting some very negative associations among the majority of the country. It will prove to be anathema to those politicians who supported it.
The funny thing is, it sounds like Ron Paul is probably vastly closer to your position on war than any other candidate.
Looked at PC sales figures lately? I think we can call that battle for Apple now.
You obviously don't even know the correct figure to one order of magnitude,
I think it's nonsense to group global warming skeptics in with the anti-cellphone, anti-vaccine nutjobs. The global warming skeptics might be wrong, but you can have severe doubts about the current state of climate knowledge without being a anti-science paranoid like the anti-vaccine nuts.
Why? There are vast numbers of qualified, unemployed teachers in every state. When districts are actively laying off teachers and have been for many years, the only thing more teaching degrees would cause is more unemployed teachers. Besides, I don't think a teaching degree is much of an indication that a person is a particularly talented teacher.
There may be a bit more of a need for engineers, but I suspect the real need is in more scientific and rational trained people in all fields.
Jealous that he has friends and relatives that actually give some thought about him? Getting cash or checks for a gift is as much an insult as anything else.
I think you may be within rights to use GPL3 for the bits that YOU add; but I don't think you can take away the GPL2 licensing on the parts that already exist. That gets tricky, though.
If you think they might have taken GPL'd source closed for which they don't possess the copyright, then you complain, then sue. But you aren't going to get anywhere if you're going on a hunch. For one thing, you don't have standing. You need to find somebody who has donated code to the project, back when it was GPL'd, and who hadn't assigned away their copyright. If you can find that, it's a slam-dunk case; otherwise, it's just speculation.
Yes, it's legal to abandon the GPLed version but nobody has answered (so far) the fact that a certain percentage of the code WAS distributed under the GPL and whilst the GPL has a provision for allowing code to be reused in closed-source software, it only permits that specific piece of re-use to not be GPLed when it is substantially different from the GPLed version.
That's not true at all. If you wrote the code, or have the copyright assigned to you, you can change licenses to and from GPL at will. You can GPL a utility you wrote, and then close it and refuse to give the source code to anyone, without changing a single bit of code. The only limit GPL puts on you is that you can't limit somebody else from redistributing the source that was out there during the time the code was GPL'd.
Hmm. It may be art; I'm not sure it's music. Just as gluing rocks randomly on a canvas may be art, but isn't a painting.
That would hardly register in the noise compared to the alienation caused by Mozilla's own stupid decisions over the last year.
True, but they're at the point where people's backs are being broken with each new straw Mozilla adds. Even minor foul-ups are hurting them significantly, because it's just one more thing...,
Sometimes running things through google search and clicking the result is the fastest way to get somewhere. I have a ton of semi-regularly visited sites that I always search on to visit. Typing 'aicn' into google and clicking is faster and less error-prone than typing 'aintitcool.com' or navigating a hierarchy of bookmarks.
You can get to gmail with just one click from the google home page... but that's if you're sitting on the home page. Typing 'gmail' and clicking the result always works, and so it can be delegated to reflexive muscle memory
The 'Euro-skeptics' are probably feeling pretty vindicated right now, I would guess.
You think Iran is a serious opponent? We could destroy their armies and topple their government in two weeks, losing only a few thousand casualties, just like we did Iraq. The expensive and difficult part is rebuilding/occupying their country afterwards, if we choose to do so.
Google didn't really detract from Apple's brand loyalty, and nobody has any brand loyalty to Facebook; they use it despite their near-universal irritation with the company.
I think MS has been reforming their image, some. Their gaming consoles have helped... I don't think they're nearly as reviled now as they were in the days of windows '95. They're too big and slow and clumsy to be 'cool', but they can still manage 'adequate'.
To sum up:
This issue hasn't been studied enough for anybody to say with confidence that Fracking is poisoning our water supply or not, and certainly not enough to say that fracking is causing earthquakes.
Regardless, most people have already made up their minds one way or the other, and are now emotionally invested in proving their prejudice correct.
This will probably taint or bias all future studies, and neither side will trust any evidence that the 'enemy' produces. This will continue until we (1) eventually realize that we've been fracking for generations and are still doing ok or (2) die, poisoned, in a massive earthquake.
This isn't quite as bad as most of the comments make it sound. They are using the email addresses of their customers as a suppression file. This is not the same as renting out the names.
They mention two cases:
1. They are sending out an email advertising campaign, and use the file of customer's email addresses to delete customers off the file, so existing customers don't get an email advertising their service. I can understand with the irritation at a company sending unsolicited email, but the suppression of customers isn't a bad thing.
2. They are sending an email to their own customers, but use the list of customers that requested no emails be sent to prune those names out of the file. That is certainly a good thing.
Both of those tasks can't be done by a vendor without providing a list of email addresses, and this is nearly always done by an outside vendor. The problem is the email vendor broke the privacy agreement, or somebody stole the names, or whatever. How can they honor a request to not email a certain customer without matching that customer's email up against their mail file?
Refutal: Pascal's wager exists. It has not, by any practical standard, "lost" the debate
Pascal's wager is trivially refuted. 'Which God?'
Neither do most Christians. It's really just a fringe group that believes that, even though it gets brought up all the time when discussing Christians.
I hypothesize that such a creator, assuming he exists, would respect our free will enough not to use hard fact to force us to believe in him.
What an evil God.
"Support" is a pretty vague term. If he simply meant he would advocate for them, that's no problem. There also would be no problem if by 'support' he meant removing barriers and red-tape. Support doesn't have to be in the form of (perhaps unconstitutional or unethical) loan guarantees, grants, and subsidies.