However, I don't feel it's my right to enforce my moral view on everyone else using the force of government
That's actually one of the purposes of government--to enforce a standard acceptab;e moral view represented by the voters. If you're a voter--why should your view not be represented by law? We do the same thing for murder, theft, etc--these are all deemed immoral by the public and as such we have laws against them.
My disagreement with your sentiments are that those things are not "evidence of being rich". Further I tend to agree with the GP that simply $200,000/yr is not "evidence of being rich". Especially for small business owners where the business income is taxed as "personal".
This is where there is simply no possibilty of being fair in our tax system. ANy why I support a consumption tax in lieu of income tax.
Living in the metro, owning a home, and having your wife stay home with the kids are all luxuries. The fact that you have them is evidence that you are rich, not the other way around.
So because I educated myself, found a steady job, budgeted my income correctly, was able to secure a loan on a home, and ensured we managed our finaces to the degree that allowed my wife to stay home and properly raise our children, I am automatically rich? I don't think so. This is a perfect example of punishing people for working hard and taking personal responsibility.
That's "Young Earth Creationists" only. I can easily belive in creationism (which I do) without beliving theat the earth is only 6000 y/o (which I don't).
Geez, I got clobbered. I get it. Really. I'll reply to this one because you're nice about it. My point is that both fall into the same category. Neither one is really testable by science. Micro-evolution can be observed, of course, but not the massive changes put forth by the theory. There is no means to prove "evolution" didn't make all life any more than God.
We haven't seen anything that makes this statement false, yet.
Does lack of seeing things count here? Like never ahving observed inorganic chemical spotaneously form anything definable as "life"? Or never having observed matter coming from nothing. I'm not trying to troll here. Promise.
Slashdot Mirror
However, I don't feel it's my right to enforce my moral view on everyone else using the force of government
That's actually one of the purposes of government--to enforce a standard acceptab;e moral view represented by the voters. If you're a voter--why should your view not be represented by law? We do the same thing for murder, theft, etc--these are all deemed immoral by the public and as such we have laws against them.
Apparently, the Chrome program of this worked well.
I think of far more options for what can go wrong.
Oh and Broken Arrow is simply a nuclear "incident" which *could* include a nuke going missing.
There is also Empty Quiver. Very bad.
New MacBook Air...the love child of a MacBook and iPad...
"Roughly all"?? I would characterize it as "relatively few".
Of course not. And a few fibers of kevlar won't either. Put together tightly makes a bit of difference, though.
Well, since they spend all their time playing games instead of working, I can completely understand.
And family.
Once you get to know a girl or two...
TWO girls??? Did you forget this is slashdot?
If you're not poor you're rich. Love your logic.
My disagreement with your sentiments are that those things are not "evidence of being rich". Further I tend to agree with the GP that simply $200,000/yr is not "evidence of being rich". Especially for small business owners where the business income is taxed as "personal". This is where there is simply no possibilty of being fair in our tax system. ANy why I support a consumption tax in lieu of income tax.
Living in the metro, owning a home, and having your wife stay home with the kids are all luxuries. The fact that you have them is evidence that you are rich, not the other way around.
So because I educated myself, found a steady job, budgeted my income correctly, was able to secure a loan on a home, and ensured we managed our finaces to the degree that allowed my wife to stay home and properly raise our children, I am automatically rich? I don't think so. This is a perfect example of punishing people for working hard and taking personal responsibility.
So I need to figure this out...is it that Apple lock their devices down too much? Or that they are not locked down enough? Can't be both...
I did say "generally", not "always". It also took Apple very little time to put out a fix.
Sucure from what? External sources?--Generally yes. Secure from the owner modifying the software directly?--No.
Oblig xkcd.
You may be unlikely to pick this one up too, but "Mere Christianity" is a very good book for the intellectual.
What matters is that Apple is finally starting to get some real competition.
I lost count of the number of times I heard that about the iPod...
I see no reason why LightPeak products can't be sold internationally...
I have yet to see a "Free market" as far as ISPs go.
That's "Young Earth Creationists" only. I can easily belive in creationism (which I do) without beliving theat the earth is only 6000 y/o (which I don't).
We haven't seen anything that makes this statement false, yet.
Does lack of seeing things count here? Like never ahving observed inorganic chemical spotaneously form anything definable as "life"? Or never having observed matter coming from nothing. I'm not trying to troll here. Promise.
I'll assume you meant there's no way to prove any of its claims. The same is true for vertical evolution.