I don't think it's a hopeful thing. It's really just a matter of getting the entrenched old guard out of the Republican party. I'm a libertarian who registers Republican because I see the Republican party aligned with my views far better than the Democrat party. My homestate, Indiana, is one of the reddest states in the union. Outside of Indianapolis, Muncie, and NW Indiana... Democrats can't make significant headway. One of the largest conservative radio talk shows in the state was even having the discussion about whether Indiana should legalize marijuana. We're talking about a state without any sort of legal cannibis going straight to legalizing it. That's huge coming out of a Republican stronghold.
I don't get what the old guard in the Republican party is so afraid of with the libertarian bent. They're the ones resisting it. They're the ones that are just as vocally demonizing it as the Democrats. The only thing that makes any sense is they're trying to protect their corporate donors. That's it because it certainly can't be because it's bad for the party.
Uh, I hate to break it to you, but no-one cares about what happened several generations ago. There were Germans that did really bad things to others more than half a century ago but neither they or their victims are alive.
Some of those victims are still alive and they pretty much range from 76 to 110 years old and that's just noteworthy survivors.
PF is a terrible fork. It outright fails to address any of the major glaring problems with 3.5. Rather than fix the issues at 3.5 it seems like it's only purpose was to make life even more difficult for martial characters while leaving spellcasters as overpowered as ever.
Newer 3.5? 5th edition is coming out. Unless you're talking about Pathfinder being the next revision of 3.5 but Pathfinder was trash that didn't really address most of the issues with 3.5 like it claimed to.
The summary is misleading. The article headline is misleading. It's fun to bash on Microsoft so the facts that are present will be ignored because they don't fit that narrative.
And Machinima is in violation for making such an agreement. This is hardly surprising, they greatly exploit their content producers because a large segment of them are kids coming out of high school that want to play video games for a living and really have no idea about the value of their work.
There's nothing that indicates any wrongdoing on Microsoft's part. The agreement linked to in the article is between Machinima and the video creator and not the agreement between Microsoft and Machinima. There's no way to tell if the "positive endorsement" was required by Microsoft or if that's just something Machinima tagged on to the agreement, but hey it's Microsoft so lets bash them anyway and not let facts stand in the way.
US Federal Code does make it a crime to fail to report a crime. It is one which is punishable with a fine or prison time. The events happened exactly as I would have expected. Since copyright violations are a federal crime and it is so often plastered at movie theaters and on DVDs or other media, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the FBI would be the responding law enforcement agency.
Those are foreseeable results from the wearer's actions. Maybe it's a "blame the victim" mentality but there is sufficient knowledge, or there should be, that what happened was a possibility. What I do notice is that every Google Glass article I'm seeing is involving the wearer getting in trouble and usually flitting about without giving regard to the consequences of their actions and then taking antagonist stances when it bites them in the ass. That is the reason the term "glasshole" exists.
I'm curious, how many prescription lenses do you think is appropriate for someone to have?
I have two current (contact/transition lenses) and one semi-current (sunglasses) prescription lenses plus a multitude of lenses in older frames I haven't bothered to discard.
I have no sympathy for the author. He only got the new lenses two weeks before the incident so I really doubt his old prescription was terrible. He either made a consciable decision to wear the google glasses instead of his non-camera prescription into an area that is well known to have issues with recording equipment or he discarded his old prescription and has no redundancy should something happen to the google glasses prescription.
The author is an idiot. Either he's an idiot because he didn't think to break out his old lenses to go to the movie because he didn't consider that a camera attached to his head might be an issue or he's an idiot because he discarded his old lenses and is relying on the google glass as his sole prescription lenses.
They aren't removed from society. They are isolated from the majority of member of society. If they are removed from society then society would not be providing them anything.
News flash. Animals that are shown to be useful as working animals are generally perceived as non-food animals. When working animals can no longer work or keeping them is too expensive for their return they will be discarded.
Yeah, anything that has more perceived intelligence or rarity has that trait. Can't herd gorillas, chimps, dolphins, elephants or humans for slaughter.
Fascinatingly enough if we use events leading up to World War II you could make the argument that Catholicism should and should not have been held in check.
The Center Party in Germany was the largest opposition to the National Socialists. They were restrained while the Center Party still existed. The Center Party had key leadership positions which were filled by Catholic priests and bishops (?). So strangely, restraining the Center Party would have been, and turned out to be, a very bad idea. At the same note, the Reichskonkordat signed between Germany and the Holy See caused the Center Party to be dissolved since the Holy See cracked down on political activism by the priests, bishops, and cardinals in Germany.
I would recommend that anyone fiercely fighting for keeping religion out of politics should read up about the Lateran Treaty and the Reichskonkordat and how those two treaties helped destroy the last pieces of political resistance to facism.
Thankfully the Separation of Church and state is still "mostly" intact in the USA.
I suggest you read up on the Lateran Treaty and the Reichskonkordat and teach yourself about how completely suppressing political speech of religion can be a very bad thing. With the Reichskonkordat specifically, it resulted in the forced dissolution of the Center Party which was the only political party providing any significant opposition to the National Socialists.
The "separation of church and state" as most people who seem to espouse it seems to result in a lack of any political involvement by religious groups. It's already bad enough that there's two political parties. Removing voices from democracy that prevents the consolidation into a single viewpoint is a very, very bad thing.
World War II is a fascinating study of whether secularism is a problem or not with government. There are very credible arguments that had it not been for secularism in government, the facist leadership of Italy and Germany would never have been able to come to power.
Both the Lateran Treaty (Italy) and the Reichskonkordat (Germany) were treaties signed between the Papacy and the respective governments. In both of these treaties, the Papacy agreed to supress political activism from priests, bishops, and cardinals within the church. Essentially it was the destruction of political Catholicism in Italy (Populist Party) and Germany (Center Party). Both of those political parties greatly opposed and stood in the way of the facist parties and were the predominant party opposing the facists. While we can never know what would have happened had both of those parties been allowed to persist it is certainly possible that neither Mussolini's facists or the Nazis would have been able to secure enough power within their respective governments in order to take control as they did.
This concerns me because it looks like, at least to me, that in the US we're seeing a similar trend. While it's not as codified as the Lateran Treaty or the Reichskonkordat, the ability of religious groups to be involved in politics is extremely limited through due to tax exemption which serves as a chain to prevent political speech. This isn't as extreme as what happened in Germany after the Center Party was dissolved, churches that were perceived as advocating a political position could see priests or bishops imprisoned and those that did speak would often times have vandalism or other property destruction applied against the churches or the members of the churches.
I do believe it's a valid question to ask whether a democracy is better off or worse off is religious groups are permitted political talk.
It doesn't need to be regulated heavily. The big question is whether to permit cadaveric organs to be sold. That is where you run into most of the problems you're talking about. The article specifically talked about kidneys and live donations rather than cadaveric. That means the donor is also the recipient of payment. When you open up cadaveric then you need all the heavy regulation in order to make sure the sources of organs are clean rather than dirty (such as criminal organ harvesters). Restricting it to live organs means both the seller and recipient would be admitted to the same facility at the same time. That really helps to minimize the coercive aspect. You could probably also extend out to any live transplants like the liver, pancreas, lung, or intestine transplants.
To add, the reason I only support living organ transplants for sale is that the harvest and transplant occur in tandem. That means you can't just walk up with a kidney and sell it.
Permitting organs from dead bodies to be sold can lead to some.... unpleasant markets cropping up.
Uh no, not everybody who needs an organ transplant is rich.
I'm actually in need of a kidney transplant myself, but being able to buy a kidney is a lot more viable than just waiting for somebody I don't even know to give me one. Donating a kidney isn't exactly an easy process for one, and for two everybody who has volunteered to give me theirs is ineligible to do so
I think selling organs is fine as long as the organ being sold is a living organ transplant which pretty much limits it to kidney, lung, liver, pancreas, and intestine donations. That means the payment is going to the person from which the organ is being harvested. Selling organs should not be available for any organs harvested from a dead person.
The audience is there to provide witness that the execution was carried out. Who is in the audience is the fucked up part. That the family of the victim is permitted is pointless and nothing more to serve their own personal vengeance.
But what's the benefit of capital punishment? Revenge? Justice? Deterrence? Closure?
Capital punishment removes an element from society that has been proven, to some degree of proven, to show a disregard for society and the freedoms and lives of people within it. These individuals have turned their back on society. Society should return the favor and as far as I can see there's only two ways to achieve this. The first is exile and the second is death. Incarceration still means that society hasn't turned its back on those who have shown it disregard. Society is still feeding, clothing, and housing those who have no respect for it or its people.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it's a hopeful thing. It's really just a matter of getting the entrenched old guard out of the Republican party. I'm a libertarian who registers Republican because I see the Republican party aligned with my views far better than the Democrat party. My homestate, Indiana, is one of the reddest states in the union. Outside of Indianapolis, Muncie, and NW Indiana... Democrats can't make significant headway. One of the largest conservative radio talk shows in the state was even having the discussion about whether Indiana should legalize marijuana. We're talking about a state without any sort of legal cannibis going straight to legalizing it. That's huge coming out of a Republican stronghold.
I don't get what the old guard in the Republican party is so afraid of with the libertarian bent. They're the ones resisting it. They're the ones that are just as vocally demonizing it as the Democrats. The only thing that makes any sense is they're trying to protect their corporate donors. That's it because it certainly can't be because it's bad for the party.
Uh, I hate to break it to you, but no-one cares about what happened several generations ago. There were Germans that did really bad things to others more than half a century ago but neither they or their victims are alive.
Some of those victims are still alive and they pretty much range from 76 to 110 years old and that's just noteworthy survivors.
PF is a terrible fork. It outright fails to address any of the major glaring problems with 3.5. Rather than fix the issues at 3.5 it seems like it's only purpose was to make life even more difficult for martial characters while leaving spellcasters as overpowered as ever.
If you're talking 3.5 D&D then you should read up and understand the Tippyverse. It's an application of the 3.5 ruleset in its entirety.
Newer 3.5? 5th edition is coming out. Unless you're talking about Pathfinder being the next revision of 3.5 but Pathfinder was trash that didn't really address most of the issues with 3.5 like it claimed to.
The summary is misleading. The article headline is misleading. It's fun to bash on Microsoft so the facts that are present will be ignored because they don't fit that narrative.
And Machinima is in violation for making such an agreement. This is hardly surprising, they greatly exploit their content producers because a large segment of them are kids coming out of high school that want to play video games for a living and really have no idea about the value of their work.
There's nothing that indicates any wrongdoing on Microsoft's part. The agreement linked to in the article is between Machinima and the video creator and not the agreement between Microsoft and Machinima. There's no way to tell if the "positive endorsement" was required by Microsoft or if that's just something Machinima tagged on to the agreement, but hey it's Microsoft so lets bash them anyway and not let facts stand in the way.
Ridiculous? Probably.
Unconstitutional? Questionable.
US Federal Code does make it a crime to fail to report a crime. It is one which is punishable with a fine or prison time. The events happened exactly as I would have expected. Since copyright violations are a federal crime and it is so often plastered at movie theaters and on DVDs or other media, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the FBI would be the responding law enforcement agency.
Those are foreseeable results from the wearer's actions. Maybe it's a "blame the victim" mentality but there is sufficient knowledge, or there should be, that what happened was a possibility. What I do notice is that every Google Glass article I'm seeing is involving the wearer getting in trouble and usually flitting about without giving regard to the consequences of their actions and then taking antagonist stances when it bites them in the ass. That is the reason the term "glasshole" exists.
And now I'm having flashbacks to the episode of Always Sunny where Dee starts popping supplements in preparation for the boxing fight.
I'm curious, how many prescription lenses do you think is appropriate for someone to have?
I have two current (contact/transition lenses) and one semi-current (sunglasses) prescription lenses plus a multitude of lenses in older frames I haven't bothered to discard.
I have no sympathy for the author. He only got the new lenses two weeks before the incident so I really doubt his old prescription was terrible. He either made a consciable decision to wear the google glasses instead of his non-camera prescription into an area that is well known to have issues with recording equipment or he discarded his old prescription and has no redundancy should something happen to the google glasses prescription.
The author is an idiot. Either he's an idiot because he didn't think to break out his old lenses to go to the movie because he didn't consider that a camera attached to his head might be an issue or he's an idiot because he discarded his old lenses and is relying on the google glass as his sole prescription lenses.
They aren't removed from society. They are isolated from the majority of member of society. If they are removed from society then society would not be providing them anything.
News flash. Animals that are shown to be useful as working animals are generally perceived as non-food animals. When working animals can no longer work or keeping them is too expensive for their return they will be discarded.
Yeah, anything that has more perceived intelligence or rarity has that trait. Can't herd gorillas, chimps, dolphins, elephants or humans for slaughter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
I am so glad I had to scroll through 10 stupidly long posts to continue reading comments.
Fascinatingly enough if we use events leading up to World War II you could make the argument that Catholicism should and should not have been held in check.
The Center Party in Germany was the largest opposition to the National Socialists. They were restrained while the Center Party still existed. The Center Party had key leadership positions which were filled by Catholic priests and bishops (?). So strangely, restraining the Center Party would have been, and turned out to be, a very bad idea. At the same note, the Reichskonkordat signed between Germany and the Holy See caused the Center Party to be dissolved since the Holy See cracked down on political activism by the priests, bishops, and cardinals in Germany.
I would recommend that anyone fiercely fighting for keeping religion out of politics should read up about the Lateran Treaty and the Reichskonkordat and how those two treaties helped destroy the last pieces of political resistance to facism.
Thankfully the Separation of Church and state is still "mostly" intact in the USA.
I suggest you read up on the Lateran Treaty and the Reichskonkordat and teach yourself about how completely suppressing political speech of religion can be a very bad thing. With the Reichskonkordat specifically, it resulted in the forced dissolution of the Center Party which was the only political party providing any significant opposition to the National Socialists.
The "separation of church and state" as most people who seem to espouse it seems to result in a lack of any political involvement by religious groups. It's already bad enough that there's two political parties. Removing voices from democracy that prevents the consolidation into a single viewpoint is a very, very bad thing.
World War II is a fascinating study of whether secularism is a problem or not with government. There are very credible arguments that had it not been for secularism in government, the facist leadership of Italy and Germany would never have been able to come to power.
Both the Lateran Treaty (Italy) and the Reichskonkordat (Germany) were treaties signed between the Papacy and the respective governments. In both of these treaties, the Papacy agreed to supress political activism from priests, bishops, and cardinals within the church. Essentially it was the destruction of political Catholicism in Italy (Populist Party) and Germany (Center Party). Both of those political parties greatly opposed and stood in the way of the facist parties and were the predominant party opposing the facists. While we can never know what would have happened had both of those parties been allowed to persist it is certainly possible that neither Mussolini's facists or the Nazis would have been able to secure enough power within their respective governments in order to take control as they did.
This concerns me because it looks like, at least to me, that in the US we're seeing a similar trend. While it's not as codified as the Lateran Treaty or the Reichskonkordat, the ability of religious groups to be involved in politics is extremely limited through due to tax exemption which serves as a chain to prevent political speech. This isn't as extreme as what happened in Germany after the Center Party was dissolved, churches that were perceived as advocating a political position could see priests or bishops imprisoned and those that did speak would often times have vandalism or other property destruction applied against the churches or the members of the churches.
I do believe it's a valid question to ask whether a democracy is better off or worse off is religious groups are permitted political talk.
It doesn't need to be regulated heavily. The big question is whether to permit cadaveric organs to be sold. That is where you run into most of the problems you're talking about. The article specifically talked about kidneys and live donations rather than cadaveric. That means the donor is also the recipient of payment. When you open up cadaveric then you need all the heavy regulation in order to make sure the sources of organs are clean rather than dirty (such as criminal organ harvesters). Restricting it to live organs means both the seller and recipient would be admitted to the same facility at the same time. That really helps to minimize the coercive aspect. You could probably also extend out to any live transplants like the liver, pancreas, lung, or intestine transplants.
To add, the reason I only support living organ transplants for sale is that the harvest and transplant occur in tandem. That means you can't just walk up with a kidney and sell it.
Permitting organs from dead bodies to be sold can lead to some.... unpleasant markets cropping up.
Uh no, not everybody who needs an organ transplant is rich.
I'm actually in need of a kidney transplant myself, but being able to buy a kidney is a lot more viable than just waiting for somebody I don't even know to give me one. Donating a kidney isn't exactly an easy process for one, and for two everybody who has volunteered to give me theirs is ineligible to do so
I think selling organs is fine as long as the organ being sold is a living organ transplant which pretty much limits it to kidney, lung, liver, pancreas, and intestine donations. That means the payment is going to the person from which the organ is being harvested. Selling organs should not be available for any organs harvested from a dead person.
The audience is there to provide witness that the execution was carried out. Who is in the audience is the fucked up part. That the family of the victim is permitted is pointless and nothing more to serve their own personal vengeance.
But what's the benefit of capital punishment? Revenge? Justice? Deterrence? Closure?
Capital punishment removes an element from society that has been proven, to some degree of proven, to show a disregard for society and the freedoms and lives of people within it. These individuals have turned their back on society. Society should return the favor and as far as I can see there's only two ways to achieve this. The first is exile and the second is death. Incarceration still means that society hasn't turned its back on those who have shown it disregard. Society is still feeding, clothing, and housing those who have no respect for it or its people.