There is a transition between social expectations and interpersonal expectations. After you know somebody long enough you are able to treat them as individuals based on a deeper understanding of their nature and what they want or don't want. Social expectations are more about stereotypes and the 'default' treatment of or position taken toward a person whom you don't know or barely know. I don't model relationships with strangers after the relationship with my wife and vice versa. Neither would be a good idea.
That makes the baseline assumption that condoms' primary function is prevent 'mess' as opposed to, you know, pregnancy. I wonder which it is? I wonder why people buy condoms instead of kleenex? FFS dumbshits.
'All' isn't the point. 'Any' is the point. So long as one of your gametes can get through the cervix to hers, pregnancy can happen. Don't let the fact that there are millions in every load fool you, only one matters.
And that's reducing people to numbers and function rather than treating them as social equals. Sure, if you want to think of women as nothing more than breeders for future generations and temporary stand-ins for a male workforce at war, than yes, you're right, a female draft is a bad idea, as is competition for lifeboats and that sort of thing. That's the point. True social equality ignores roles that would otherwise be assigned by gender alone. (Not to mention no nation would ever draft its entire population, even all males of age weren't drafted in the US in WWII, just most of them.)
Some people may be desperate enough to live a pandering life just so they can get laid, but I have never compromised myself in that way. As for you and your ilk...
As far as I'm concerned, Burma is simply the English name. Just like English speakers say 'France' or formally 'French Republic' instead of 'Republique Francaise', and the Germans call it 'Frankreich'. If people want to read a bunch of chauvinism into it that's their problem, but be sure to wag your finger at every other language that has different names for countries. And I expect you to start calling Norway 'Norge', Greece 'Hellas', Sweden 'Sverige', etc. etc. you politically correct twit.
Dude, seriously. Nothing bothers me like women who have a princess complex and want to be given all of the deference for none of the cost. I have no problem treating women as equals, they are equals, but with that comes opening doors for yourself, sharing bills, registering for the draft (which should happen but doesn't), competing for lifeboats and all the rest. You can't have equality and special treatment both.
Yeah except your quaint analogy breaks down where it meets the fact that I didn't enter into a contract with the electric and/or water company for unlimited electricity and/or water for $/mo. US residential internet service is not usually pay-as-you-go, and I know few who want it to be. My ISP is going to give me what they are advertising or I'll switch ISPs. Caps are acceptable so long as they are clearly defined and reasonable.
And spoil the chance to play cloak and dagger for a while? Now he gets to be all dramatic and pretend he's a secret agent or something. Maybe he'll even trick out his car with missiles and oil slicks. Of course his name sounds more like a Bond villain than a 'good guy', so maybe he'll build himself a secret island fortress and transfer a bunch of HP underlings out there to be his evil henchmen. Once they finish building the doomsday satellite he'll be able to use his massive orbital weapons platform to destroy Oracle once and for all! Bwah hahahahaha!
The whole of section 40 is about non-discrimination, about judging persons based on intrinsics or intangibles vs. behaviors. Outside of obvious discrimination against protected classes a lot of room is left in vague terms like 'abusive conduct' for a good lawyer (one could say the person was 'abusing the code of conduct of the theater' and still have leverage so long as that policy wasn't clearly discriminatory toward protected classes).
I don't know where you come from, but where I'm from self-reliance is a virtue. Places that offer to carry things for me make me feel awkward, it's like what do I look like, an 80 year old woman? I don't need help performing basic functions, thanks. And if it's made mandatory that somebody else perform those basic functions it's even worse. That's why I don't buy gas in Oregon. Do it your damn self and be proud of it, and fight for your right to do it yourself, or you may find in the long run that you should have been more careful what you wished for.
Goddamn people are fucking lazy sheep these days, practically begging for somebody to run their lives. I suppose it's how people were raised. Kids think they're entitled to instant gratification for every whim, that somebody's going to do the work for them and be thankful for the privilege. When I was a kid, if I was cold I went and split the logs myself, made a fire and tended it as long as I had to. And I was raised to see that as an honor not a chore, one that I had to earn through responsibility, as gaining self-respect through laboring for yourself instead of leaning on somebody else. If somebody labors for you when you could have easily done it yourself, you lose respect, and you should lose pride. It seems most people these days have tons of "self-esteem" but nothing to be proud of, so they have nothing to lose, so why not let somebody else do the work for you? It's convenient. Yeah, that's what good character is built on.
Makes me want to go split some wood. Heh, all this righteous indignation may finally even be the catalyst necessary for me to do some yard work and clean the gutters. Fucking leaves.
But the general rule of thumb is that a property owner cannot force you to do anything except leave. The only exception is when the request is clearly motivated by discrimination against a protected class.
The Constitution protects people from the government, not other people (or their businesses), except in cases of discriminating against protected classes. A printing company has the right to refuse to print something, but that's not censorship or a violation of the First Amendment (unless it's done under color of law). Constitutional protections don't disappear on private property, they just aren't relevant to the property owner. (And the idea that the government is the effective owner of all property because they have legislative/regulatory power is one of the most retarded arguments I've ever heard.)
And yes, threatening people's lives is in almost every case heinous. That's why it's illegal. (And yes, I recognize the difference between and do not ever conflate mere legality with morality or ethical soundness.)
You're half right. Protected classes do have meaning to how a property owner may apply policy. So yeah, you can't have a 'no black people' policy, but you can have a dress code. Somebody can't walk into a swanky club wearing a tank top and cutoffs because that's not a protected class (so long as exceptions aren't being made for people based on a dimension associated with protected classes, such as waiving the dress code for whitey). So you are wrong about doing legal things on private property. A property owner can legally eject anybody for any reason not reasonably related to protected classes.
And as I said before, it's not a right to search bags. If a property owner (or agent thereof) says 'I want to search your bag' you can say 'no' and they can't search your bag, but they can then ask you to leave and that can and will be enforced by a responding law enforcement agency. The only way protected classes would be an intervening factor is if the request for search or the request to vacate were made in a clearly bigoted way.
Quite frankly such behavior would have been so beyond parameters for the professional conduct of a LEO that I would have called 911 to report somebody is impersonating an officer and threatening to kill people. There'd be so many cruisers on code 3 you'd think it was a parade.
I hope you're lying about being a LEO. Threatening some minimum wage jackass just trying to do his job for the property owner with murder and a cover up as a legitimate use of deadly force is heinously irresponsible and in fact criminal.
You have no right to access private property on terms other than those of the property owner. If the property owner wants all bags searched, you comply or piss off. That's how trespass law works. It's not a right to search bags, it's a condition for entry. You don't want to meet that condition, the property owner has the right to deny you entry. The end.
I am not a lawyer and the previous should not be construed as legal advice.
WPA, like WEP, is simply encryption of the links between clients and AP. There is no encryption between the clients, they are as transparent to each other as if they were physically cabled to any hub or switch. Now I've heard tell of some enterprise class APs having the capacity to create things like VLANs using multiple SSIDs, but those are expensive and rare (from a SOHO perspective).
However, WPA when used with RADIUS can integrate with a domain controller and establish permissions for various network resources based on account parameters.
If some busybody tried to "escort" me out of a store for simply buying something, I'd tell them to reverse the whole transaction immediately. I've bought a few guns in my time, and ammo with them, and never have been treated like that, nor would I ever accept being treated like that.
Yeah, and the ambulance company sends you a bill too, does that mean you spit in the EMT's eyes? Whether somebody's life is saved by 'pure altruism' or some geopolitical machination is immaterial to the fact that the person's life was saved, and some people had to work damn hard to do it, regardless of whether they were paid or that was 'just their job,' that doesn't negate that hard work was done to save lives.
Yeah I know, it's not like the United States ever takes whole carrier groups and parks them off of impoverished third world nations that have just endured a hurricane or an earthquake. Doctors from all branches certainly haven't slaved over nearly innumerable numbers of battered and wounded refugees supported by an immense web of logistics paid for by the American taxpayer with no questions asked. Supplies are never airlifted nor delivered by sea to airfields and ports secured by US servicemen. Yeah, what fucking irony, you ignorant and blind ideologue shitheads.
(Here the epithet "shitheads" is applied as much or more to the replies of this thread than the parent.)
Slashdot Mirror
There is a transition between social expectations and interpersonal expectations. After you know somebody long enough you are able to treat them as individuals based on a deeper understanding of their nature and what they want or don't want. Social expectations are more about stereotypes and the 'default' treatment of or position taken toward a person whom you don't know or barely know. I don't model relationships with strangers after the relationship with my wife and vice versa. Neither would be a good idea.
That makes the baseline assumption that condoms' primary function is prevent 'mess' as opposed to, you know, pregnancy. I wonder which it is? I wonder why people buy condoms instead of kleenex? FFS dumbshits.
'All' isn't the point. 'Any' is the point. So long as one of your gametes can get through the cervix to hers, pregnancy can happen. Don't let the fact that there are millions in every load fool you, only one matters.
And that's reducing people to numbers and function rather than treating them as social equals. Sure, if you want to think of women as nothing more than breeders for future generations and temporary stand-ins for a male workforce at war, than yes, you're right, a female draft is a bad idea, as is competition for lifeboats and that sort of thing. That's the point. True social equality ignores roles that would otherwise be assigned by gender alone. (Not to mention no nation would ever draft its entire population, even all males of age weren't drafted in the US in WWII, just most of them.)
No he said specifically the 'second case' which is antecedent/respective to 'getting laid'.
Some people may be desperate enough to live a pandering life just so they can get laid, but I have never compromised myself in that way. As for you and your ilk...
As far as I'm concerned, Burma is simply the English name. Just like English speakers say 'France' or formally 'French Republic' instead of 'Republique Francaise', and the Germans call it 'Frankreich'. If people want to read a bunch of chauvinism into it that's their problem, but be sure to wag your finger at every other language that has different names for countries. And I expect you to start calling Norway 'Norge', Greece 'Hellas', Sweden 'Sverige', etc. etc. you politically correct twit.
Anonymous: Operation BURMA SHAVE
(hehehe)
Dude, seriously. Nothing bothers me like women who have a princess complex and want to be given all of the deference for none of the cost. I have no problem treating women as equals, they are equals, but with that comes opening doors for yourself, sharing bills, registering for the draft (which should happen but doesn't), competing for lifeboats and all the rest. You can't have equality and special treatment both.
Somebody doesn't know how a cervix works, but I suppose that's par for the course.
Yeah except your quaint analogy breaks down where it meets the fact that I didn't enter into a contract with the electric and/or water company for unlimited electricity and/or water for $/mo. US residential internet service is not usually pay-as-you-go, and I know few who want it to be. My ISP is going to give me what they are advertising or I'll switch ISPs. Caps are acceptable so long as they are clearly defined and reasonable.
And spoil the chance to play cloak and dagger for a while? Now he gets to be all dramatic and pretend he's a secret agent or something. Maybe he'll even trick out his car with missiles and oil slicks. Of course his name sounds more like a Bond villain than a 'good guy', so maybe he'll build himself a secret island fortress and transfer a bunch of HP underlings out there to be his evil henchmen. Once they finish building the doomsday satellite he'll be able to use his massive orbital weapons platform to destroy Oracle once and for all! Bwah hahahahaha!
The whole of section 40 is about non-discrimination, about judging persons based on intrinsics or intangibles vs. behaviors. Outside of obvious discrimination against protected classes a lot of room is left in vague terms like 'abusive conduct' for a good lawyer (one could say the person was 'abusing the code of conduct of the theater' and still have leverage so long as that policy wasn't clearly discriminatory toward protected classes).
Also most states don't have laws like this.
I don't know where you come from, but where I'm from self-reliance is a virtue. Places that offer to carry things for me make me feel awkward, it's like what do I look like, an 80 year old woman? I don't need help performing basic functions, thanks. And if it's made mandatory that somebody else perform those basic functions it's even worse. That's why I don't buy gas in Oregon. Do it your damn self and be proud of it, and fight for your right to do it yourself, or you may find in the long run that you should have been more careful what you wished for.
Goddamn people are fucking lazy sheep these days, practically begging for somebody to run their lives. I suppose it's how people were raised. Kids think they're entitled to instant gratification for every whim, that somebody's going to do the work for them and be thankful for the privilege. When I was a kid, if I was cold I went and split the logs myself, made a fire and tended it as long as I had to. And I was raised to see that as an honor not a chore, one that I had to earn through responsibility, as gaining self-respect through laboring for yourself instead of leaning on somebody else. If somebody labors for you when you could have easily done it yourself, you lose respect, and you should lose pride. It seems most people these days have tons of "self-esteem" but nothing to be proud of, so they have nothing to lose, so why not let somebody else do the work for you? It's convenient. Yeah, that's what good character is built on.
Makes me want to go split some wood. Heh, all this righteous indignation may finally even be the catalyst necessary for me to do some yard work and clean the gutters. Fucking leaves.
See my response to this AC.
But the general rule of thumb is that a property owner cannot force you to do anything except leave. The only exception is when the request is clearly motivated by discrimination against a protected class.
It would have to be something like 90%* off before I would give up that much self-respect.
*What can I say? Everybody has their price.
Agreed.
The Constitution protects people from the government, not other people (or their businesses), except in cases of discriminating against protected classes. A printing company has the right to refuse to print something, but that's not censorship or a violation of the First Amendment (unless it's done under color of law). Constitutional protections don't disappear on private property, they just aren't relevant to the property owner. (And the idea that the government is the effective owner of all property because they have legislative/regulatory power is one of the most retarded arguments I've ever heard.)
And yes, threatening people's lives is in almost every case heinous. That's why it's illegal. (And yes, I recognize the difference between and do not ever conflate mere legality with morality or ethical soundness.)
You're half right. Protected classes do have meaning to how a property owner may apply policy. So yeah, you can't have a 'no black people' policy, but you can have a dress code. Somebody can't walk into a swanky club wearing a tank top and cutoffs because that's not a protected class (so long as exceptions aren't being made for people based on a dimension associated with protected classes, such as waiving the dress code for whitey). So you are wrong about doing legal things on private property. A property owner can legally eject anybody for any reason not reasonably related to protected classes.
And as I said before, it's not a right to search bags. If a property owner (or agent thereof) says 'I want to search your bag' you can say 'no' and they can't search your bag, but they can then ask you to leave and that can and will be enforced by a responding law enforcement agency. The only way protected classes would be an intervening factor is if the request for search or the request to vacate were made in a clearly bigoted way.
(IA still NAL)
Quite frankly such behavior would have been so beyond parameters for the professional conduct of a LEO that I would have called 911 to report somebody is impersonating an officer and threatening to kill people. There'd be so many cruisers on code 3 you'd think it was a parade.
I hope you're lying about being a LEO. Threatening some minimum wage jackass just trying to do his job for the property owner with murder and a cover up as a legitimate use of deadly force is heinously irresponsible and in fact criminal.
You have no right to access private property on terms other than those of the property owner. If the property owner wants all bags searched, you comply or piss off. That's how trespass law works. It's not a right to search bags, it's a condition for entry. You don't want to meet that condition, the property owner has the right to deny you entry. The end.
I am not a lawyer and the previous should not be construed as legal advice.
WPA, like WEP, is simply encryption of the links between clients and AP. There is no encryption between the clients, they are as transparent to each other as if they were physically cabled to any hub or switch. Now I've heard tell of some enterprise class APs having the capacity to create things like VLANs using multiple SSIDs, but those are expensive and rare (from a SOHO perspective).
However, WPA when used with RADIUS can integrate with a domain controller and establish permissions for various network resources based on account parameters.
If some busybody tried to "escort" me out of a store for simply buying something, I'd tell them to reverse the whole transaction immediately. I've bought a few guns in my time, and ammo with them, and never have been treated like that, nor would I ever accept being treated like that.
Yeah, and the ambulance company sends you a bill too, does that mean you spit in the EMT's eyes? Whether somebody's life is saved by 'pure altruism' or some geopolitical machination is immaterial to the fact that the person's life was saved, and some people had to work damn hard to do it, regardless of whether they were paid or that was 'just their job,' that doesn't negate that hard work was done to save lives.
I reiterate: shitheads.
Yeah I know, it's not like the United States ever takes whole carrier groups and parks them off of impoverished third world nations that have just endured a hurricane or an earthquake. Doctors from all branches certainly haven't slaved over nearly innumerable numbers of battered and wounded refugees supported by an immense web of logistics paid for by the American taxpayer with no questions asked. Supplies are never airlifted nor delivered by sea to airfields and ports secured by US servicemen. Yeah, what fucking irony, you ignorant and blind ideologue shitheads.
(Here the epithet "shitheads" is applied as much or more to the replies of this thread than the parent.)