Do you have any evidence the percentage is different, or is this just another "all muslims are part of an evil conspiracy" feeling? Sharia is not what the conspiracy theorists say it is but that was from a previous slashdot topic.
This is an attitude in many Christian circles as well. We're talking 21st century Christians in Murica, the same people that condemned D&D and Harry Potter. Plenty of them in Europe as well though not so prominent.
Drivers already do this, and there is a high correlation to driver experiences with mileage to the listed EPA mileage estimates. Sure, it's not extremely accurate and is variable based upon the driver, but it is still reliable information for the consumer. It's wrong to say there's "no valid information", which makes it seem like the EPA just makes up numbers and consumers were too stupid to verify them.
No, the citizens have decided to elect people to try and get competion, reversing the mistakes in the past that gave the telecoms preferential treatments. Governments give preferential treatmeans all the damn time - from trade deals with foreign nations, to tariffs, sole supplier agreements with defense contractors, to deciding who's going to be the asshole cable company that gets the monopoly, etc. If preferential treatments are bad then there are much bigger fish to fry than with city hall being asked to do their jobs by the voters.
The current state of competition is inherently unfair and lopsided, and that is the time that government must step in because the free market has proven over and over again that it can not self correct itself if left alone. The needs of the people outweigh some theoretical idealism.
Telecoms object to competition. The fact that local governments are involved gets the anarchists happy as a side effect. When a telecom has effectively nullified all private competition then it is the job of government to step in. Everyone should like seeing small local democratically elected governmenst being allowed to make decisions that their citizens ask for, except for some radical anti-government kooks.
I've been there. No TV most of grad school, then when I got one it was a cheapo 3 inch B/W portable TV my parents got for attending a time share lecture (which I used to watch Star Trek Next Generation, which I should actually watch again on Netflix so I can see what it's like in big screen color).
Sure, if you don't use it. But quitting because of a very generous cost is silly. And this month a lot showed up that was new for me. Stuff I may have seen before, but like cable I never subscribed only to watch new stuff. I only watch some stuff on weekends, but that's all I did on cable too. I don't need new movies, I didn't have that on cable either except as pay per view. The selection of something to watch on netflix is amazingly larger than cable ever had.
VPN, I don't care, I'm in the US and not trying to cheat the system. If someone doesn't like it complain to the content owners, Netflix doesn't have a choice here (other streaming services are going to be pummeled into line also).
Yes, they raised the rates. So what? It's a great deal before the rate hike, it's a great deal after the rate hike, and they were grandfathered the old rate for two years which is nearly unheard of in any industry which should have earned an enormous amount of good will. You will never find a deal that good without going to piracy.
Netflix got a lot of customers who were cranky. They left the cable companies but that doesn't mean they stopped being cranky. They've got the mindset that they don't have to put up with anything they don't like and they're not going to pay the cable tax. So now on Netflix they're still cranky, cranky enough to unsubscribe for the summer. Maybe even cranky enough to demand their original subscription price be maintained for life!
Drop and go where? You must binge a lot because I can't see myself running out of Netflix content anytime soon, though I'm only watching a few shows on weekend. But drop it and there's nothing else - hulu is worse, Amazon is pretty crappy, and everything else is vastly more expensive. The only way to go is to either pirate or stop watching TV.
Which is why Apple is in the position of having to have a NEW iphone every year because they've basically saturated the market. Things can not grow forever. So companies find a away around that - making products that can't be fixed, products that aren't built to last, and so on.
Amazon is still a wannabe player in the market. It's big market segment is people already subscribed to Amazon prime, they're not getting a lot of new customers. Their selection is really terrible, and if there's something good then chances are you may have to pay extra for it above and beyond the subscription.
The reason the stock is down is that the primary market is full of people who already cut the cord once and won't hesitate to do so again if given a chance. Meanwhile Comcast can ramp up their rates and most customers just put up with it. But sheesh, granfathered in for 2 years at $8/mo and it goes to $10 a month, and they get angry even though they used to pay $80 or more a month.
Microsoft thinks it makes them look bad. They also discount the system for marketing purposes and don't want people taking advantage. And because it's software and patchable, they can try to block this, something you can't really do with other products very easily (ie, the cue-cat).
Well, they sell it at a decent price. Because they sell a crappy operating system on it that can't really utilize all power of the hardware, so they lower the cost to match. Which means it can be in high demand by users who know how to crack it.
The patch should not matter much if you can buy a boxed system and put a new OS on it before the patch gets applied.
There are no no-go zones in the US, or even Birmingham in the UK. Can you provide any actual examples or are you just repeating what you heard from Worldnetdaily?
Sharia is very similar to laws followed by Orthodox jews and yet we don't kick them out of the country for having their own rules that they expect their adherents to follow. Few people are trying to replace US law with Sharia law, just like few people are trying to replace US law with Christian law (and yes there are some but they're in the minority). There are some odd bits in Sharia law that seem archaic or barbaric, but the SAME occurs in the Old Testament and the Torah; but the majority of those religious followers do not go about putting witches and adulterers to death.
You're looking at the most extremist of Muslims (Wahabis) and claiming that all Muslims are the same. That's like saying all Christians are blowing up abortion clinics, or all Jews are building illegal settlements.
Don't give who visas? The citizens who are already in the US and who have never lived anywhere else who just happen to be Muslim?
And so deport anyone of Muslim background who believes in Sharia law? Which means we only accept Muslims who don't believe in Sharia law, or in other words, Muslims with poor morals? That's absurd.
Sure, if someone has a crazy idea to ban visa to Saudi citizens based upon human rights records in Saudi Arabia, then that is one thing and can be discussed separatey. But to ban someone based upon a religious test is fundamentally opposed to the constitution in the first place, and to ban someone based upon following a moral code is just bizarre.
People are scared of anything alien. Remember when many loudly stated that John F Kennedy was not qualified to be US President because he took his orders from the pope. Those against Sharia most likely don't even know what it is and are just reading extremist web sites like worldnetdaily, or listening to shock jocks like Limbaugh.
Why are we paying attention to him? He's been discredited as a hypocrite, with bigger moral failings than those he was accusing of not being of good character. He should be all rights be a non-entity at this point and doing nothing more political than talking at the local Oddfellows club.
Rejecting someone based on belief in Sharia is stupid. Sharia does not mean someone believes in overthrowing the US, or in violence, or anything like that. No one practicing Sharia in the US is cutting off the hands of thieves. It's just a religious set of rules, vague and fuzzy rules too as no one is in agreement on them anyway. If you're Muslim then you hold to at least some parts of Sharia (like not eating pork). And there are dozens of varieties of Islam.
In the extremist evangelican community there's been myths spread around that Sharia is replacing US laws in some place, which is ridiculous. We have many faiths in the US where the members may follow additional laws and rules and codes; for instance a legal divorce granted by a court of law is not considered binding in many faiths (Roman Catholics may need to get an additional annullment, some Orthodox Jewish groups need to get a specific "get", etc). Many religions and sects will want you to resolve disputes within their group rather than within the courts. None of those laws nullify US law though. And likewise, no one is trying to replace US law with Sharia law.
Having your own rules about what foods to eat or when to fast, whether or not to pay/receive interest, how much to give to charities, or what to wear, should never disqualify someone from being a citizen or resident of the US.
If you deport someone because of belief in Sharia then where do you deport them do if they are native born citizens of with multiple generations in this country? This is just hysterical pandering and fear mongering by someone known to have poor judgement.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have any evidence the percentage is different, or is this just another "all muslims are part of an evil conspiracy" feeling? Sharia is not what the conspiracy theorists say it is but that was from a previous slashdot topic.
Funny thing, if an Israeli hadn't assassinated Rabin... You don't have a conflict this big without having irrational bigoted extremists on both sides.
This is an attitude in many Christian circles as well. We're talking 21st century Christians in Murica, the same people that condemned D&D and Harry Potter. Plenty of them in Europe as well though not so prominent.
http://www.charismanews.com/op...
Drivers already do this, and there is a high correlation to driver experiences with mileage to the listed EPA mileage estimates. Sure, it's not extremely accurate and is variable based upon the driver, but it is still reliable information for the consumer. It's wrong to say there's "no valid information", which makes it seem like the EPA just makes up numbers and consumers were too stupid to verify them.
But it's easier to just rant about it online. Studies and facts are for nerds.
No, the citizens have decided to elect people to try and get competion, reversing the mistakes in the past that gave the telecoms preferential treatments. Governments give preferential treatmeans all the damn time - from trade deals with foreign nations, to tariffs, sole supplier agreements with defense contractors, to deciding who's going to be the asshole cable company that gets the monopoly, etc. If preferential treatments are bad then there are much bigger fish to fry than with city hall being asked to do their jobs by the voters.
The current state of competition is inherently unfair and lopsided, and that is the time that government must step in because the free market has proven over and over again that it can not self correct itself if left alone. The needs of the people outweigh some theoretical idealism.
Telecoms object to competition. The fact that local governments are involved gets the anarchists happy as a side effect. When a telecom has effectively nullified all private competition then it is the job of government to step in. Everyone should like seeing small local democratically elected governmenst being allowed to make decisions that their citizens ask for, except for some radical anti-government kooks.
However eye witnesses said it vanished briefly when hitting 88 m.p.h. then reappeared.
I have friends and relatives who tried Amazon and were disappointed. I don't need two day shipping, I only buy stuff from Amazon once a year at most.
Yes, I hate that auto-play feature. But for $10 a month I can't really demand perfection.
I've been there. No TV most of grad school, then when I got one it was a cheapo 3 inch B/W portable TV my parents got for attending a time share lecture (which I used to watch Star Trek Next Generation, which I should actually watch again on Netflix so I can see what it's like in big screen color).
Sure, if you don't use it. But quitting because of a very generous cost is silly. And this month a lot showed up that was new for me. Stuff I may have seen before, but like cable I never subscribed only to watch new stuff. I only watch some stuff on weekends, but that's all I did on cable too. I don't need new movies, I didn't have that on cable either except as pay per view. The selection of something to watch on netflix is amazingly larger than cable ever had.
VPN, I don't care, I'm in the US and not trying to cheat the system. If someone doesn't like it complain to the content owners, Netflix doesn't have a choice here (other streaming services are going to be pummeled into line also).
Yes, they raised the rates. So what? It's a great deal before the rate hike, it's a great deal after the rate hike, and they were grandfathered the old rate for two years which is nearly unheard of in any industry which should have earned an enormous amount of good will. You will never find a deal that good without going to piracy.
Netflix got a lot of customers who were cranky. They left the cable companies but that doesn't mean they stopped being cranky. They've got the mindset that they don't have to put up with anything they don't like and they're not going to pay the cable tax. So now on Netflix they're still cranky, cranky enough to unsubscribe for the summer. Maybe even cranky enough to demand their original subscription price be maintained for life!
Drop and go where? You must binge a lot because I can't see myself running out of Netflix content anytime soon, though I'm only watching a few shows on weekend. But drop it and there's nothing else - hulu is worse, Amazon is pretty crappy, and everything else is vastly more expensive. The only way to go is to either pirate or stop watching TV.
Which is why Apple is in the position of having to have a NEW iphone every year because they've basically saturated the market. Things can not grow forever. So companies find a away around that - making products that can't be fixed, products that aren't built to last, and so on.
Amazon is still a wannabe player in the market. It's big market segment is people already subscribed to Amazon prime, they're not getting a lot of new customers. Their selection is really terrible, and if there's something good then chances are you may have to pay extra for it above and beyond the subscription.
None of that is the fault of Netflix.
The reason the stock is down is that the primary market is full of people who already cut the cord once and won't hesitate to do so again if given a chance. Meanwhile Comcast can ramp up their rates and most customers just put up with it. But sheesh, granfathered in for 2 years at $8/mo and it goes to $10 a month, and they get angry even though they used to pay $80 or more a month.
Microsoft thinks it makes them look bad. They also discount the system for marketing purposes and don't want people taking advantage. And because it's software and patchable, they can try to block this, something you can't really do with other products very easily (ie, the cue-cat).
Well, they sell it at a decent price. Because they sell a crappy operating system on it that can't really utilize all power of the hardware, so they lower the cost to match. Which means it can be in high demand by users who know how to crack it.
The patch should not matter much if you can buy a boxed system and put a new OS on it before the patch gets applied.
There are no no-go zones in the US, or even Birmingham in the UK. Can you provide any actual examples or are you just repeating what you heard from Worldnetdaily?
Sharia is very similar to laws followed by Orthodox jews and yet we don't kick them out of the country for having their own rules that they expect their adherents to follow. Few people are trying to replace US law with Sharia law, just like few people are trying to replace US law with Christian law (and yes there are some but they're in the minority). There are some odd bits in Sharia law that seem archaic or barbaric, but the SAME occurs in the Old Testament and the Torah; but the majority of those religious followers do not go about putting witches and adulterers to death.
You're looking at the most extremist of Muslims (Wahabis) and claiming that all Muslims are the same. That's like saying all Christians are blowing up abortion clinics, or all Jews are building illegal settlements.
Don't give who visas? The citizens who are already in the US and who have never lived anywhere else who just happen to be Muslim?
And so deport anyone of Muslim background who believes in Sharia law? Which means we only accept Muslims who don't believe in Sharia law, or in other words, Muslims with poor morals? That's absurd.
Sure, if someone has a crazy idea to ban visa to Saudi citizens based upon human rights records in Saudi Arabia, then that is one thing and can be discussed separatey. But to ban someone based upon a religious test is fundamentally opposed to the constitution in the first place, and to ban someone based upon following a moral code is just bizarre.
People are scared of anything alien. Remember when many loudly stated that John F Kennedy was not qualified to be US President because he took his orders from the pope. Those against Sharia most likely don't even know what it is and are just reading extremist web sites like worldnetdaily, or listening to shock jocks like Limbaugh.
What a pansy liberal option! Execute *everyone* who doesn't vote the right way, just to be sure.
Why are we paying attention to him? He's been discredited as a hypocrite, with bigger moral failings than those he was accusing of not being of good character. He should be all rights be a non-entity at this point and doing nothing more political than talking at the local Oddfellows club.
Rejecting someone based on belief in Sharia is stupid. Sharia does not mean someone believes in overthrowing the US, or in violence, or anything like that. No one practicing Sharia in the US is cutting off the hands of thieves. It's just a religious set of rules, vague and fuzzy rules too as no one is in agreement on them anyway. If you're Muslim then you hold to at least some parts of Sharia (like not eating pork). And there are dozens of varieties of Islam.
In the extremist evangelican community there's been myths spread around that Sharia is replacing US laws in some place, which is ridiculous. We have many faiths in the US where the members may follow additional laws and rules and codes; for instance a legal divorce granted by a court of law is not considered binding in many faiths (Roman Catholics may need to get an additional annullment, some Orthodox Jewish groups need to get a specific "get", etc). Many religions and sects will want you to resolve disputes within their group rather than within the courts. None of those laws nullify US law though. And likewise, no one is trying to replace US law with Sharia law.
Having your own rules about what foods to eat or when to fast, whether or not to pay/receive interest, how much to give to charities, or what to wear, should never disqualify someone from being a citizen or resident of the US.
If you deport someone because of belief in Sharia then where do you deport them do if they are native born citizens of with multiple generations in this country? This is just hysterical pandering and fear mongering by someone known to have poor judgement.