While I'm sure Google is talented, providing an OS and API is new ground for them. I'm not sure what their culture is like, but I would think time to iron out the kinks would be expected for this type of thing.
Apple/Next has been developing APIs for developers for years and have lots of lessons learned. Google is new to this. Give them time.
He's isn't saying that Fascism and Communism were so opposite they were similar. He is saying that ideologically they weren't too far apart in the positions they espoused.
And you are forgetting that this country was founded by people who wanted us to be free of this type of governmental activity? You forget our success is in part due to the freedom to have our own property and to be left alone in large measure.
Of course we have responsibilities to collective society. But that doesn't mean that we don't have rights.
What you are confusing is not wanting our rights trampled is not the same as not wanting to help people. Is it OK for me to rob someone take their money and give it to someone else? Is the person being robbed being selfish for not wanting to be robbed?
Article 2 does apply. If you are a foreign power or working for one, it falls under executive powers inherent in the Presidency.
If they find something that pertains to civil criminality, they shouldn't use it in a court of law. But if they find out that you are talking with al Qaeda, this seems fine.
They did far, far more in WWII. I think it is time for people to have a reality check on the ramifications of this. Not saying you need to be for it. But a lot of the fear seems exaggerated.
When I'm playing Mario and having fun, I don't think the game suffers from a) the most racist video game character ever (Mama Mia!) b) really wacked out plot lines (star bits? lumas? ray surfing? bee suits?). It's just fun.
And that's what video games need to be. If they have a great interactive story, so be it.
A certain percentage of laid off workers will decide that that is the push they needed to start their own businesses.
The real answer is we don't know. It could make companies more competitive by giving incentives to innovate (biofuels, etc.) You never know where the next great idea will come from.
First, Europeans aren't having enough kids. Their populations will decline unless Muslim immigrants and their descendants fill the gap.
What you will see, and even the Archbishop of Canterbury mentioned it, will be sharia laws in European countries. First for the Muslims. Hopefully, it won't branch out from there. Now, I know people were critical of those remarks. But today's unthinkable becomes tomorrow's thinkable.
A theist can give a rational accounting for unchanging laws of physics. An atheist cannot. We both assume they don't change. A theist can give a rational accounting of why they don't change. That was the general point. "We observe they haven't yet changed" is not a basis for future events since you still have laws hanging in mid-air, so to speak.
In terms of Big Bang cosmology, I didn't say there must be a beginner. Just that Big Bang cosmology strongly lends support to the theistic worldview.
Also, your arguments that there must be infinite regress with that logic doesn't work. Every cause needs and effect. But there is no reason there can't be an uncaused Beginner.
This ranks with his cosmological constant as his biggest mistake.
Actually, they may be related. There are theistic implications to there being a beginning. Maybe Einstein didn't like a beginning (hence the need for a cosmological constant) because he didn't like the implications that there was a Beginner.
More reflection would have also noted that if you have laws you need to assume a Law -giver. If you have free-floating laws of physics not grounded in anything, you have no valid reason for assuming they won't change. This is the problem Hume raised and which atheistic materialism cannot account for.
They catch on pretty quickly. But yeah, I was surprised by the need for classes too. Lactation nurse! If you ever meet a male lactation nurse, I hope they've undergone a background check.
Slashdot Mirror
Then the landlord isn't "free" to use his property as he sees fit.
Someone's freedom has got to give. There has to be some restriction of freedom given your definition of freedom.
Yup, Oregon and New Jersey. It's annoying.
I think this law, above all others, really separates the nanny states from the super-duper overbearing motherly nanny states.
It's called "hate crimes" legislation.
In Canada, they have there an office of inquisition regarding hate crimes.
Bill is fine. I could use his caveat on any law under the sun.
You can find the article here.
So even global warming backers say global warming is in hiatus but they'll point to this as proof of global warming. Which they admitted is in hiatus.
While I'm sure Google is talented, providing an OS and API is new ground for them. I'm not sure what their culture is like, but I would think time to iron out the kinks would be expected for this type of thing.
Apple/Next has been developing APIs for developers for years and have lots of lessons learned. Google is new to this. Give them time.
He's isn't saying that Fascism and Communism were so opposite they were similar. He is saying that ideologically they weren't too far apart in the positions they espoused.
National Socialism
as opposed to universal socialism known as communism.
So when the government controls business, i.e. "nationalizes" or "socializes" it, that is fascism. At least in the original definition.
Can you name a country that treats their citizens of a country you are at war with with the same rights as their own?
Stop the crazy naive thinking.
What part of their legal reasoning do you disagree with?
When did al Qaeda sign the Geneva Convention? When did they abide by it? (Like wearing uniforms.)
I'm not against taxes. I just want taxes used for purposes envisioned by the Constitution. Roads, fire protection, etc.
Not charity.
And you are forgetting that this country was founded by people who wanted us to be free of this type of governmental activity? You forget our success is in part due to the freedom to have our own property and to be left alone in large measure.
Of course we have responsibilities to collective society. But that doesn't mean that we don't have rights.
What you are confusing is not wanting our rights trampled is not the same as not wanting to help people. Is it OK for me to rob someone take their money and give it to someone else? Is the person being robbed being selfish for not wanting to be robbed?
Just help people yourself.
That's fine. I stole the line too. As Picaso said, "good artists borrow and great artists steal."
Operation and cost are killer apps?
Article 2 does apply. If you are a foreign power or working for one, it falls under executive powers inherent in the Presidency.
If they find something that pertains to civil criminality, they shouldn't use it in a court of law. But if they find out that you are talking with al Qaeda, this seems fine.
They did far, far more in WWII. I think it is time for people to have a reality check on the ramifications of this. Not saying you need to be for it. But a lot of the fear seems exaggerated.
When I'm playing Mario and having fun, I don't think the game suffers from a) the most racist video game character ever (Mama Mia!) b) really wacked out plot lines (star bits? lumas? ray surfing? bee suits?). It's just fun.
And that's what video games need to be. If they have a great interactive story, so be it.
No one has seen Superman 3 for years because it is such a bad movie. So it is kind of like the telephone game.
Frankly, the only good thing to come out of the movie was the concept of stealing fractions of pennies so no one notices.
A certain percentage of laid off workers will decide that that is the push they needed to start their own businesses.
The real answer is we don't know. It could make companies more competitive by giving incentives to innovate (biofuels, etc.) You never know where the next great idea will come from.
First, Europeans aren't having enough kids. Their populations will decline unless Muslim immigrants and their descendants fill the gap.
What you will see, and even the Archbishop of Canterbury mentioned it, will be sharia laws in European countries. First for the Muslims. Hopefully, it won't branch out from there. Now, I know people were critical of those remarks. But today's unthinkable becomes tomorrow's thinkable.
Well, that's the question isn't it. How bad is the previous stuff? Are you truly repentant for what you previously did?
A theist can give a rational accounting for unchanging laws of physics. An atheist cannot. We both assume they don't change. A theist can give a rational accounting of why they don't change. That was the general point. "We observe they haven't yet changed" is not a basis for future events since you still have laws hanging in mid-air, so to speak.
In terms of Big Bang cosmology, I didn't say there must be a beginner. Just that Big Bang cosmology strongly lends support to the theistic worldview.
Also, your arguments that there must be infinite regress with that logic doesn't work. Every cause needs and effect. But there is no reason there can't be an uncaused Beginner.
This ranks with his cosmological constant as his biggest mistake.
Actually, they may be related. There are theistic implications to there being a beginning. Maybe Einstein didn't like a beginning (hence the need for a cosmological constant) because he didn't like the implications that there was a Beginner.
More reflection would have also noted that if you have laws you need to assume a Law
-giver. If you have free-floating laws of physics not grounded in anything, you have no valid reason for assuming they won't change. This is the problem Hume raised and which atheistic materialism cannot account for.
They catch on pretty quickly. But yeah, I was surprised by the need for classes too. Lactation nurse! If you ever meet a male lactation nurse, I hope they've undergone a background check.