If it's handled by the state how does the federal government handle social security for surviving spouses? Income tax law concerning married/unioned couples?
I believe Ron Paul says it should be a state issue as opposed to a federal issue. To clarify when I used the word state I meant state as in government as opposed to state vs federal. I was trying to make a differentiation between a secular civil union and a religious marriage. I admit my view is one of semantics in some respect, but I think the word marriage is associated with religion where a civil union is a more secular term.
Now I do think that a civil union can be good for society. Beyond children it affords rights to a civil partner with respect to beneficiary rights (and others) and I think that stability in a relationship is good for stability in society. Because there are rights associated with respect to a partner I can support the idea of it being handled at a federal level because rights should not vary from state to state. I would disagree with Ron Paul that it should be a state issue.
My view is one based on the observation that many people disagree about how marriage should be defined and that the disagreement often stems from differing religious backgrounds. My solution/compromise is for the government to recognize civil union between partners, gay or straight, and to leave it to religion to determine whether that constitutes a marriage.
Equally as ridiculous: the state involved in the love affairs and relationships of anyone.
I think this is it. The state shouldn't recognize gay marriage because it shouldn't recognize straight marriage. It should recognize civil unions gay or straight and then let whatever religion you are decide to call it marriage.
India is a democracy. We really don't need to butt in. It's not a dictatorship, they choose their politicians. Unfortunately a democracy doesn't have to guarantee rights. In fact, subverting rights in a democracy is not all that hard. You just have to say something something terrorists something something children
I believe there are something like 40,000 TSA employees. Assuming they take 90% of it and what they send in represents 10% they are pulling in about $90 per year on average. Quite a racket they got going there.
I've had similar things happen. Once I wanted to go on vacation, lined up my cover and the boss still wanted to tell me it wasn't a good time. I told him I would just have to put in my notice because I had already made plans and wasn't going to cancel them. It took about an hour before he came back and told me my vacation was approved.
Another time wasn't vacation but the branch where I worked was closing. A couple hundred people were being laid off. We were told we could apply for jobs at other locations. I didn't. When asked why, I said if I had to apply to a company I was already working for then I'd rather work for someone who appreciated what I did. I also mentioned that if I was going to be submitting resumes I might as well do it to companies that were growing (this was last year). It took two days before I was offered a promotion and a raise at another branch.
The secret to job security is giving them the impression that they need you more than you need them. Be confident that what you offer is valuable. Understand that if they are paying you x dollars you know they are making x + y off of your work. It's why they hire people in the first place. Most bosses excel at making their employees feel they should be grateful for having a job, you just have to turn the tables. It's a risk but don't let them know that. It's like poker.
a truly reliable and perfect form of biological reproduction is asymptotically impossible due to thermodynamics (this is mentioned in the article.),
I am not a physicist either:) but while it is in the article, the author merely mentions that the laws of thermodynamics make it impossible. But presuming he is referring to the second law and entropy, it only applies to isolated systems so I wouldn't think it's impossible.
I'm not trying to be argumentative I just find that discussions on/. with informed people can lead me to a better understanding of things.
1. Homeostasis. It must make a detectable effort to maintain the conditions of its internals, and to adjust to changes in its environment.
2. Reproduction. It must be capable of creating copies of itself (or approximate copies of itself.)
3. Evolution. Its offspring must be able to adapt to changes in the environment through to natural selection.
I'm not a biologist but I enjoy learning so I have a some questions about these definitions.
What's the current thought on virus? Are they 'living'?
Concerning #2. Shouldn't life have to create approximate copies? If they create [exact] copies, wouldn't that negate #3?
Concerning #3, If life doesn't make exact copies, doesn't evolution have to happen by way of natural selection. In other words are #2 and #3 redundant?
Tax rates don't follow zip codes at all. A given taxing area may span multiple zip codes, and a zip code may (and probably does) cover multiple different tax areas.
I'm sure there may be a tax area that spans multiple zip codes but that's not really an issue. But do you have an example of a zip code that covers multiple different tax areas? If so, how is the area and jurisdiction defined? Are these guys full of it?
Copyright laws are to preserve the right of copying the work for the copyright holder. Period.
Laws balance the rights of individuals to the rights of societies. You can't solely argue for the rights of the individual (in many cases, not even the actual author) without weighing the pros and cons to society. Otherwise, laws are meaningless and will ultimately fail. Current copyright law does not take into consideration the benefit of public domain and thus has become meaningless and will ultimately fail.
I'm not saying we should abolish copyright but extending it beyond the life span of most people doesn't even give benefits to the author and sacrifices a great deal to the public. Walt Disney is dead, opening Fantasia to the public domain would do more to encourage what it was originally intended to be than Disney owning it ever will.
What the doll maker ought to do is claim satire. Partly because that's their only Out,
Assuming it's only state law and assuming it doesn't violate any Chinese laws then they can just not sell them in California. On top of that, if there is a distributor different than the manufacturer then why should a manufacturer in China care about a lawsuit brought under California law? The distributor would be the only ones legally responsible for breaking California's laws.
If you've done the research provide an opposing source.
* NASA admits that they originally ordered pencils for over $100 each but backtracked. Latch on to that if you want to bash wasteful government spending, but remember they did respond to the public backlash.
I think it might be this one
The decision pdf lists G & G Addiction Treatment LLC, but I could find no reports are found for that name. Also it say the post was in July, 2009. There are two for G & G Holistics Addiction Treatment Center in Florida. PDF states the poster claimed owner was a felon and this post does that but is dated May 2009.
Tell me about it! My Congressman is Spencer Bachus, one of the biggest crooks and liars in Washington. We're probably going to vote him out next year
Well, he's only won 10 times in a row, maybe the 11th is the charm. He received 75% of the vote in the primary in 2010 and hasn't been challenged in the general election the last 4 times. Good luck.
Slashdot Mirror
Fourth.
Of course there's a lot to it, but consider how many tools the American worker has to be productive.
If it's handled by the state how does the federal government handle social security for surviving spouses? Income tax law concerning married/unioned couples?
I believe Ron Paul says it should be a state issue as opposed to a federal issue. To clarify when I used the word state I meant state as in government as opposed to state vs federal. I was trying to make a differentiation between a secular civil union and a religious marriage. I admit my view is one of semantics in some respect, but I think the word marriage is associated with religion where a civil union is a more secular term.
Now I do think that a civil union can be good for society. Beyond children it affords rights to a civil partner with respect to beneficiary rights (and others) and I think that stability in a relationship is good for stability in society. Because there are rights associated with respect to a partner I can support the idea of it being handled at a federal level because rights should not vary from state to state. I would disagree with Ron Paul that it should be a state issue.
My view is one based on the observation that many people disagree about how marriage should be defined and that the disagreement often stems from differing religious backgrounds. My solution/compromise is for the government to recognize civil union between partners, gay or straight, and to leave it to religion to determine whether that constitutes a marriage.
Read my post again. Nothing I said supports your response.
Equally as ridiculous: the state involved in the love affairs and relationships of anyone.
I think this is it. The state shouldn't recognize gay marriage because it shouldn't recognize straight marriage. It should recognize civil unions gay or straight and then let whatever religion you are decide to call it marriage.
I believe you're looking for this.
I Have A Dream
India is a democracy. We really don't need to butt in. It's not a dictatorship, they choose their politicians. Unfortunately a democracy doesn't have to guarantee rights. In fact, subverting rights in a democracy is not all that hard. You just have to say something something terrorists something something children
I believe there are something like 40,000 TSA employees. Assuming they take 90% of it and what they send in represents 10% they are pulling in about $90 per year on average. Quite a racket they got going there.
I've had similar things happen. Once I wanted to go on vacation, lined up my cover and the boss still wanted to tell me it wasn't a good time. I told him I would just have to put in my notice because I had already made plans and wasn't going to cancel them. It took about an hour before he came back and told me my vacation was approved.
Another time wasn't vacation but the branch where I worked was closing. A couple hundred people were being laid off. We were told we could apply for jobs at other locations. I didn't. When asked why, I said if I had to apply to a company I was already working for then I'd rather work for someone who appreciated what I did. I also mentioned that if I was going to be submitting resumes I might as well do it to companies that were growing (this was last year). It took two days before I was offered a promotion and a raise at another branch.
The secret to job security is giving them the impression that they need you more than you need them. Be confident that what you offer is valuable. Understand that if they are paying you x dollars you know they are making x + y off of your work. It's why they hire people in the first place. Most bosses excel at making their employees feel they should be grateful for having a job, you just have to turn the tables. It's a risk but don't let them know that. It's like poker.
a truly reliable and perfect form of biological reproduction is asymptotically impossible due to thermodynamics (this is mentioned in the article.) ,
I am not a physicist either :) but while it is in the article, the author merely mentions that the laws of thermodynamics make it impossible. But presuming he is referring to the second law and entropy, it only applies to isolated systems so I wouldn't think it's impossible.
/. with informed people can lead me to a better understanding of things.
I'm not trying to be argumentative I just find that discussions on
1. Homeostasis. It must make a detectable effort to maintain the conditions of its internals, and to adjust to changes in its environment.
2. Reproduction. It must be capable of creating copies of itself (or approximate copies of itself.)
3. Evolution. Its offspring must be able to adapt to changes in the environment through to natural selection.
I'm not a biologist but I enjoy learning so I have a some questions about these definitions.
What's the current thought on virus? Are they 'living'?
Concerning #2. Shouldn't life have to create approximate copies? If they create [exact] copies, wouldn't that negate #3?
Concerning #3, If life doesn't make exact copies, doesn't evolution have to happen by way of natural selection. In other words are #2 and #3 redundant?
Tax rates don't follow zip codes at all. A given taxing area may span multiple zip codes, and a zip code may (and probably does) cover multiple different tax areas.
I'm sure there may be a tax area that spans multiple zip codes but that's not really an issue. But do you have an example of a zip code that covers multiple different tax areas? If so, how is the area and jurisdiction defined? Are these guys full of it?
Copyright laws are to preserve the right of copying the work for the copyright holder. Period.
Laws balance the rights of individuals to the rights of societies. You can't solely argue for the rights of the individual (in many cases, not even the actual author) without weighing the pros and cons to society. Otherwise, laws are meaningless and will ultimately fail. Current copyright law does not take into consideration the benefit of public domain and thus has become meaningless and will ultimately fail.
I'm not saying we should abolish copyright but extending it beyond the life span of most people doesn't even give benefits to the author and sacrifices a great deal to the public. Walt Disney is dead, opening Fantasia to the public domain would do more to encourage what it was originally intended to be than Disney owning it ever will.
I wonder if all of these are approved.
What the doll maker ought to do is claim satire. Partly because that's their only Out,
Assuming it's only state law and assuming it doesn't violate any Chinese laws then they can just not sell them in California. On top of that, if there is a distributor different than the manufacturer then why should a manufacturer in China care about a lawsuit brought under California law? The distributor would be the only ones legally responsible for breaking California's laws.
Out of curiosity, what allows the MPAA or RIAA to sue people over copyright infringement?
Realistically doesn't this just make it more likely for people with defective genes to reproduce?
Doesn't most medical and technological advancement?
Yeah, but heck out Super Computers.
:P
How often do they get hacked?
Is there an ape store?
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed
Of course courts have interpreted it to not apply to all laws. I guess the wording was too vague.
Wikipedia
NASA*
About
Spacepen
The Space Review
BBC History Magazin
If you've done the research provide an opposing source.
* NASA admits that they originally ordered pencils for over $100 each but backtracked. Latch on to that if you want to bash wasteful government spending, but remember they did respond to the public backlash.
I think it might be this one The decision pdf lists G & G Addiction Treatment LLC, but I could find no reports are found for that name. Also it say the post was in July, 2009. There are two for G & G Holistics Addiction Treatment Center in Florida. PDF states the poster claimed owner was a felon and this post does that but is dated May 2009.
Tell me about it! My Congressman is Spencer Bachus, one of the biggest crooks and liars in Washington. We're probably going to vote him out next year
Well, he's only won 10 times in a row, maybe the 11th is the charm. He received 75% of the vote in the primary in 2010 and hasn't been challenged in the general election the last 4 times. Good luck.
Chrome has been gaining share at Firefox's expense,
Really?