You laugh, but code bloat makes it far harder to maintain, improve, debug, and fix. It puts higher-than-necessary barriers to entry for anyone unfamiliar with the code to play with it. Code size is a bigger issue than you think.
That's physical, actual paper, snail mail. No online forms, no emails, no calls.
I wonder about this. TL;DR: Is there *any* reason why they can demand this?
It depends on what the law states. If the laws don't say that Paypal has to allow opting out in the manner most convenient to you, then they could choose snail mail, and I doubt the courts are willing to rule at this time that a postal letter is onerous. It's not like "this request must be made in person at our corporate headquarters during business hours."
Libertarianism is about reducing state power over individuals
... thus creating a power vacuum filled by corporate powers. See, Libertarians are not just about reducing state power over individuals, they want to reduce state power over those groups as well, and remove the restrictions for their behavior. See, 'regulations' seem to have become a dirty word now, but they are put into place to address past abuses and prevent future ones from occurring. You can make the claim that there are too many regulations or that they go too far, and could be correct, but they always come about thanks to abuse. They're not instated for fun, or someone's love for 'big government.'
I don't want to be "ruled" by a government, but I want to be "ruled" by private companies even less.
By the way, the name is Obama. You don't sound any cleverer than the guys who spell Romney "Rmoney," and no one outside the Daily Kos or viewer comments on Fox News are going to be impressed or amused by it.
But the Republicans have their own legions of mindless partisans.
Yes they do. But those partisans are not in control of every media facility for the entire U.S.
Just popular ones. For some reason, very large sections of our country love to watch partisans yell. Maybe it's the trend away from strict education and towards infotainment instead. Maybe there's just something comforting in it all.
When they hear his positions, most people don't like Ron Paul's politics. He has a very very active and vocal base though, which is certainly something.
Though it's a lot like the movie Snakes on a Plane. It had a very vocal group of people looking forward to it, it got incredible amounts of buzz among geeks, then it came out... and tanked. It ranked 93rd among wide releases that year. It turns out a loud, vocal, small fanbase is in the end, still a small fanbase. And that's all that matters if you don't actually appeal to a wider audience.
So what happens? You get George W. Bush in 2000. Sometimes the lesser evil is, or certainly would have been in retrospect, a much, much better choice.
I will always, and must always, consider my vote to be for a candidate. I can never vote just to vote against a candidate. Otherwise the system is a failure and I might as well not vote at all.
I used to do this, but in California, they passed a law the excludes 3rd party candidates from the ballot (it is not written so plainly, but that has been its effect-- without exception, and probably its original intent-- only the top two recipients of votes in the primaries can make it to the final ballot). You can't even write in the names of other candidates. Under the California law, the only seat where a 3rd party vote is allowed now is for President, which is the least likely seat to ever see a 3rd party candidate win.
So vote for your third-party candidate in the primary. If he can't muster support during the primary, he sure as hell won't in the general election either.
Why aren't they polling well? I expect it's because they cannot get media coverage for love nor money
Usually the Green Party candidates don't poll THAT highly because most Americans don't believe in the philosophies of the Green Party. Or at least, they believe in them less than the other guys.
yes... just because it is against the customs of now, whereas it was normal politics for the time and culture... how ignorant.
A giant problem with revering and deifying people who lived hundreds or thousands of years ago is that traditions or actions of the past before "morally good for all time." So marrying and having sex with prepubescent girls is not the horrible act that non-Muslims might consider it... since Muhammad did it, and he was the founder of your religion, the mouthpiece of God, and is generally the example you should be following. So when he has sex with a young girl or wages war to spread his religion, the morality of such actions becomes frozen in time. Society can't 'progress' past that, because the dogma is unyielding -- Muhammad did it 1400 years ago, so it must be a good thing to do. Insidious and horrific.
If you look at US society in the 50s, antisemitism was just as common as other forms of racism and bigotry
And racism against black people didn't disappear when segregation was outlawed either. I think racism will only disappear when generations do -- racism and bigotry can be ingrained pretty deeply, and it seems like the cure is for newer generations who didn't grow up with those beliefs overtake the older ones.
Muslims are so hostile towards the west, the US in particular, because of the last 40 years of US foreign policy
What you left out was the most important of the US's sins -- the support of the nation of Israel, the usual target whenever other Middle East countries want to blame their own problems on someone else. Israel is a wonderful foil for the imams, for people will listen better if faced with an "us versus them" situation.
They have immediate family members who are dead because of what the US government has done, be it the overthrow of the Iranian government in 53 or the US backing of Sadam in the Iran-Iraq war.
Let's be clear, there were no good sides in the Iran-Iraq war. It was quite reasonable given what we knew of Iran and Iraq at the time to believe that Saddam was the lesser of two evils, and back then, to the US, Iran was a superbly big evil.
All their grievances boil down to the desire for self rule.
And their desires to have the nation of Israel wiped away as a Jewish state.
No religious people are seeking not to think, that's pretty much it.
Religious people are seeking answers, even if they're the wrong answers. Answers are far more comforting than uncertainty. I'm personally more comfortable with a lack of answers over a human invention I'm pretty sure is not correct.
Isn't it interesting how the homosexual community did similar protests against Chick-fil-A when it's president said that he supports traditional marriage?
Well that's a nice way of spinning it. Protesting against religiously-sponsored bigotry is itself a "silly religious reason?"
No one protests that someone supports the recent definition of "traditional marriage." I'm fine with people who want to get married in the traditional manner. Nothin' wrong with that.
My problem is when a religion says that gay people are unworthy and don't have similar rights. I don't have a lot of respect for that, no.
What is the purpose of copyright? To allow a creator to profit from his or her creativity.
The purpose of copyright is to benefit society. We found that protecting the distribution of copyrighted works leads to an increase in those works and an increase in output from the creators. But the purpose was to benefit society as a whole, not simply content authors.
It's only recently that copyright has switched from "benefiting society" to "giving permanent ownership of ideas to the creators."
Although what I would gain from treating a fictional book as some sort of Holy Bible to work into every possible conversation has yet to be explained to me, but a lot of people seem to consider it highly likely for some strange reason
Just FYI, actual Objectivists do treat Atlas Shrugged as a Holy Bible to be studied and quoted in that manner, and those on the far left will find those philosophies morally repugnant. So if you were wondering why you stepped into something... well, that's why.:-)
Bringing Ayn Rand into a discussion about Washington is like bringing a gun to a knife fight.
Companies don't hire lobbyists because they have to, they hire them because they want to influence (purchase) favorable rules and regulations. Lobbyists are not defensive, they are offensive.
No, they are both, like nuclear weapons. For example, Microsoft didn't used to be a major player in Washington in the 80s and early 90s, and it found out to its detriment what happens when you don't play the game to 'contribute' to get congressmen on your side, while your competitors do.
I wish I could mention a simple fictional book without people freaking out about it and assuming they know who I am and what I believe and then proceeding to rail against whatever they just made up about me.
Unfortunately it's now impossible, given the greater familiarity with Ayn Rand, to separate her political philosophies from her books, especially since the latter are just political screeds with the barest, thinnest plots overlaid on top. I read the Fountainhead for a class in high school, thought it was pretty bad, and all the objectivist stuff flew right over my head at the time. Now I know better what the purpose of it all was!
the actual people who break the law for profit and the people who supervise and direct them would be the ones with legal responsibility for their crimes and abuses
If you break the law while working for or on behalf of a corporation, you are still legally liable for those actions. Moreso the higher up the chain of command you go.
Of course, a prosecutor still has to be able to prove it, and there has to be the political will or resources to prosecute.
But the recent demands for speech restrictions have conflated the two. Radical Muslims will say that threatening the dignity of their god is just as violent an act. The emissary from Saudi Arabia claimed it was a "terrorist act on the thoughts of 1.6 billion Muslims." That's what is so insidious about all of this.
Slashdot Mirror
You laugh, but code bloat makes it far harder to maintain, improve, debug, and fix. It puts higher-than-necessary barriers to entry for anyone unfamiliar with the code to play with it.
Code size is a bigger issue than you think.
That's physical, actual paper, snail mail. No online forms, no emails, no calls.
I wonder about this. TL;DR: Is there *any* reason why they can demand this?
It depends on what the law states. If the laws don't say that Paypal has to allow opting out in the manner most convenient to you, then they could choose snail mail, and I doubt the courts are willing to rule at this time that a postal letter is onerous. It's not like "this request must be made in person at our corporate headquarters during business hours."
Libertarianism is about reducing state power over individuals
... thus creating a power vacuum filled by corporate powers. See, Libertarians are not just about reducing state power over individuals, they want to reduce state power over those groups as well, and remove the restrictions for their behavior. See, 'regulations' seem to have become a dirty word now, but they are put into place to address past abuses and prevent future ones from occurring. You can make the claim that there are too many regulations or that they go too far, and could be correct, but they always come about thanks to abuse. They're not instated for fun, or someone's love for 'big government.'
I don't want to be "ruled" by a government, but I want to be "ruled" by private companies even less.
By the way, the name is Obama. You don't sound any cleverer than the guys who spell Romney "Rmoney," and no one outside the Daily Kos or viewer comments on Fox News are going to be impressed or amused by it.
But the Republicans have their own legions of mindless partisans.
Yes they do. But those partisans are not in control of every media facility for the entire U.S.
Just popular ones. For some reason, very large sections of our country love to watch partisans yell. Maybe it's the trend away from strict education and towards infotainment instead. Maybe there's just something comforting in it all.
When they hear his positions, most people don't like Ron Paul's politics. He has a very very active and vocal base though, which is certainly something.
Though it's a lot like the movie Snakes on a Plane. It had a very vocal group of people looking forward to it, it got incredible amounts of buzz among geeks, then it came out... and tanked. It ranked 93rd among wide releases that year. It turns out a loud, vocal, small fanbase is in the end, still a small fanbase. And that's all that matters if you don't actually appeal to a wider audience.
So what happens? You get George W. Bush in 2000. Sometimes the lesser evil is, or certainly would have been in retrospect, a much, much better choice.
I will always, and must always, consider my vote to be for a candidate. I can never vote just to vote against a candidate. Otherwise the system is a failure and I might as well not vote at all.
Then again, maybe that's turnouts are so low.
I used to do this, but in California, they passed a law the excludes 3rd party candidates from the ballot (it is not written so plainly, but that has been its effect-- without exception, and probably its original intent-- only the top two recipients of votes in the primaries can make it to the final ballot). You can't even write in the names of other candidates. Under the California law, the only seat where a 3rd party vote is allowed now is for President, which is the least likely seat to ever see a 3rd party candidate win.
So vote for your third-party candidate in the primary. If he can't muster support during the primary, he sure as hell won't in the general election either.
Romney is Bush II
Wouldn't that make him Bush III? >_>
Why aren't they polling well? I expect it's because they cannot get media coverage for love nor money
Usually the Green Party candidates don't poll THAT highly because most Americans don't believe in the philosophies of the Green Party. Or at least, they believe in them less than the other guys.
yes... just because it is against the customs of now, whereas it was normal politics for the time and culture... how ignorant.
A giant problem with revering and deifying people who lived hundreds or thousands of years ago is that traditions or actions of the past before "morally good for all time." So marrying and having sex with prepubescent girls is not the horrible act that non-Muslims might consider it... since Muhammad did it, and he was the founder of your religion, the mouthpiece of God, and is generally the example you should be following. So when he has sex with a young girl or wages war to spread his religion, the morality of such actions becomes frozen in time. Society can't 'progress' past that, because the dogma is unyielding -- Muhammad did it 1400 years ago, so it must be a good thing to do. Insidious and horrific.
No copy of any KP movie has EVER caused physical harm to children.
NONE.
Those harmed are the children who are in the movie, of course.
And of course, they are too young and immature to give informed consent as well.
If you look at US society in the 50s, antisemitism was just as common as other forms of racism and bigotry
And racism against black people didn't disappear when segregation was outlawed either. I think racism will only disappear when generations do -- racism and bigotry can be ingrained pretty deeply, and it seems like the cure is for newer generations who didn't grow up with those beliefs overtake the older ones.
Muslims are so hostile towards the west, the US in particular, because of the last 40 years of US foreign policy
What you left out was the most important of the US's sins -- the support of the nation of Israel, the usual target whenever other Middle East countries want to blame their own problems on someone else. Israel is a wonderful foil for the imams, for people will listen better if faced with an "us versus them" situation.
They have immediate family members who are dead because of what the US government has done, be it the overthrow of the Iranian government in 53 or the US backing of Sadam in the Iran-Iraq war.
Let's be clear, there were no good sides in the Iran-Iraq war. It was quite reasonable given what we knew of Iran and Iraq at the time to believe that Saddam was the lesser of two evils, and back then, to the US, Iran was a superbly big evil.
All their grievances boil down to the desire for self rule.
And their desires to have the nation of Israel wiped away as a Jewish state.
No religious people are seeking not to think, that's pretty much it.
Religious people are seeking answers, even if they're the wrong answers. Answers are far more comforting than uncertainty. I'm personally more comfortable with a lack of answers over a human invention I'm pretty sure is not correct.
Isn't it interesting how the homosexual community did similar protests against Chick-fil-A when it's president said that he supports traditional marriage?
Well that's a nice way of spinning it. Protesting against religiously-sponsored bigotry is itself a "silly religious reason?"
No one protests that someone supports the recent definition of "traditional marriage." I'm fine with people who want to get married in the traditional manner. Nothin' wrong with that.
My problem is when a religion says that gay people are unworthy and don't have similar rights. I don't have a lot of respect for that, no.
"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil â" that takes religion."
A belief in "the greater good" is all that's necessary, and while religion helps, it is not a necessity for that.
What is the purpose of copyright? To allow a creator to profit from his or her creativity.
The purpose of copyright is to benefit society. We found that protecting the distribution of copyrighted works leads to an increase in those works and an increase in output from the creators. But the purpose was to benefit society as a whole, not simply content authors.
It's only recently that copyright has switched from "benefiting society" to "giving permanent ownership of ideas to the creators."
Although what I would gain from treating a fictional book as some sort of Holy Bible to work into every possible conversation has yet to be explained to me, but a lot of people seem to consider it highly likely for some strange reason
Just FYI, actual Objectivists do treat Atlas Shrugged as a Holy Bible to be studied and quoted in that manner, and those on the far left will find those philosophies morally repugnant. So if you were wondering why you stepped into something... well, that's why. :-)
Bringing Ayn Rand into a discussion about Washington is like bringing a gun to a knife fight.
Companies don't hire lobbyists because they have to, they hire them because they want to influence (purchase) favorable rules and regulations. Lobbyists are not defensive, they are offensive.
No, they are both, like nuclear weapons. For example, Microsoft didn't used to be a major player in Washington in the 80s and early 90s, and it found out to its detriment what happens when you don't play the game to 'contribute' to get congressmen on your side, while your competitors do.
I wish I could mention a simple fictional book without people freaking out about it and assuming they know who I am and what I believe and then proceeding to rail against whatever they just made up about me.
Unfortunately it's now impossible, given the greater familiarity with Ayn Rand, to separate her political philosophies from her books, especially since the latter are just political screeds with the barest, thinnest plots overlaid on top. I read the Fountainhead for a class in high school, thought it was pretty bad, and all the objectivist stuff flew right over my head at the time. Now I know better what the purpose of it all was!
Your post had no relevant point. Why should it not have been modded down?
the actual people who break the law for profit and the people who supervise and direct them would be the ones with legal responsibility for their crimes and abuses
If you break the law while working for or on behalf of a corporation, you are still legally liable for those actions. Moreso the higher up the chain of command you go.
Of course, a prosecutor still has to be able to prove it, and there has to be the political will or resources to prosecute.
But the recent demands for speech restrictions have conflated the two. Radical Muslims will say that threatening the dignity of their god is just as violent an act.
The emissary from Saudi Arabia claimed it was a "terrorist act on the thoughts of 1.6 billion Muslims." That's what is so insidious about all of this.
spoken like an idiot
It just means he's not 8 years old playing cowboy on the playground anymore.