You are required to register your vehicle and display proof of that registration in the open. Then you chose to drive that vehicle onto SOMEONE ELSE's property. That property owner decided to capture that information that you are legally required to display, in the open, and sell it.
Sounds pretty shitty of them, I agree. But then you have the right to not drive onto someone else's property.
Hehehh... Your laughably smug reply is not nearly enough to mask the fact that you're simply and irrecoverably wrong, and we're all pretty sure you know it.
You own a vehicle and you register it with the state. No one's had a problem with that for many decades. It's actually done a lot of good for us as a society. Now you decide to drive around, in public, onto a commercial vendor's property, and they take public pics and sell that to anyone who believes that data is of value.
The fact that only recently the technology exists for any idiot to capture, distribute, process, analyze, and act upon this otherwise public volunteered information doesn't mean that something that's been going on for many decades is now suddenly wrong. Obscurity is not security. The sudden removal of obscurity doesn't mean that the lack of security or the lack of commonly understood disclosure is now suddenly the problem. Can't believe a slashdot reader would have to be reminded of that. I guess mall owners are now going to have to post "voluntary entry onto these premises provides consent to be photographed". So thanks. Another sign. Or maybe you're an attorney.
He didn't say that FB cares about people, he just said that the level of "care" a provider shows its users, is not at all connected to whether or not the provider charges users directly.
The only "care" the user or the provider need to show is that which is spelled out in the ToS.
Beyond that, Apple cares that people keep buying, and FB cares that people keep connecting. How is this a problem?
CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Wow... Hilarious that your rude response proves MY point and opposes your own.
Let's see if you can follow this. I'll try one more time. More slowly this time... See if you can keep up.
-- The First Amendment prohibits the GOVERNMENT from restricting your speech. About ANYTHING.
-- (With some well-defined exceptions) it doesn't matter WHAT that speech is about.
-- It has nothing to do with the government only restricting speech about or against the government.
-- It has nothing to do about trash talking the government.
-- It's about government not being able to restrict your speech in general.
If you still can't grasp the important difference between your error and the truth, try XKCD's take on the subject. And then maybe go back to high school, cuz it's obvious you missed a few days.
In other words, if you're going to be smug, first be correct.
doing so would set a bad precedent that some other person... will expect a pardon for that
Pardons don't create precedents, especially since granting them is within the sole power and discretion of one person, who in this case will not be holding that position much longer.
So...
o If you mean some kind of legally binding precedent; that is obviously false.
o If you mean some legally arguable precedent that you're saying creates an "expectation" for some judge or jury to decide, also false, since the next situation if any will be a different president with his/her own discretion, and pardons don't involve the courts.
o If you mean some general expectation that might put more "hey, why not" public relations pressure or political cost on the next president in a similar situation, also false; and quite a stretch at that.
Thanks. I really appreciate the continued replies and additional information.
I think perhaps I'm about to be the first person on an interwebz discussion forum to admit that, when it comes to this topic, the stuff I don't know and don't understand turned out to be greater than what I thought I knew and understood.
It's pretty clear that I have a lot more reading and learning and wrapping my head around this to do (and a few more lightbulb moments to experience) before I go poppin' off with "what, huh, no" about what your said in your original reply.
Thanks again for all the info, examples, and references.
Sounds like we agree with the fact that a MET wouldn't cause any "you received it before I sent it" type of paradoxes so long as no one in the scenario is moving relative to one another.
Ok, first... relatively stationary things:
>>I think you misunderstood the setup. You are only talking about Alice and Bob, but left out the crucial third participant Carol
I did that on purpose. Meaning, I was trying to simplify the variables so that my example can remain focused on whether or not a MET device sending something FTL might run the risk of exhibiting the "received before sent" paradox. I still kinda stand behind the idea that, as long as no one is moving relative to one another, the fact that a MET message goes faster than light, doesn't mean it goes backward in time, despite the fact that speed-of-light observations of the actions might make it appear so.
Ok, onward to things that are relatively moving...
While my mind is still not seeing anything in your examples where something went back in time, I'll concede that I guess my understanding of all of this is incomplete. Especially the spinning example. And I'll admit while I remember the ladder example from school, I was always pretty convinced it was only trying to explain "apparent" size/location/timing. I understand speed of light. I understand time-dilation of things moving relative to other things (i've always found the twin paradox easy to understand), and I understand perfectly how these things are proven and well known as measured by airplanes and how GPS satellites/receivers rely on the speed of light in order to work at all. And I was thrown a bit when many (but not all) of your initial examples, and references you included, deal with and explain "apparent" simultaneity. Like, two things that are absolutely simultaneous by someone in the same frame as the events, may actually *appear* to take place before or after one another to other observers dependent on their relative location and motion.
In other words, I still don't get it *yet*, because some of your earlier examples seemed to be conflating things that are apparent with those that are absolute, but then later examples do distinguish between them. I do however stand by (so far) my logical postion that there *is* such thing as absolute simultaneity, as long as we don't confuse it with our ability (or inability) to measure or verify such simultaneity when things are moving.
Off to read more now. You put a lot of time into this, and I appreciate that, and I hope others who read it can benefit from it like I have. Time to stretch my mind a little on this before I object any further.
All fair points and all great examples, and I appreciate the discussion. Fascinating stuff.
"magical entanglement transmitter" -- what a great name for it!:-) (let's use "MET")
Despite everything you said, it's still true that some of your examples above deal with *apparent* relative simultaneity, not absolute simultaneity (which can be proven btw, but is a different issue). And while another of your examples does consider time dilation that occurs as a result of relative movement, (both well-known and long proven phenomena,) still nothing in any of your examples indicate anything moving backward in time. Nothing suggests that our MET is allowing for a message to be received (in an absolute sense) before it's been sent (in an absolute sense). The MET doesn't create a paradox.
>>Now, at 12:00, Alice "instantaneously" sends a message to Bob who receives it at 12:00. Looking at Alice through his binoculars, Bob can still see her clock indicating 11:50 and it will take another 10 minutes before he can see her type the message, but his magical entanglement transmitter has already received it.
Yes, the MET has caused Bob to receive Alice's message, because she sent it at 12:00 and he received it at the absolute synchronized 12:00. When he looks at Alice through his binos, he sees what she looked like at 11:50, and yes it's going to take 10 more minutes before he sees her type it. That doesn't mean she hasn't sent it yet. It only proves that light bouncing off Alice as she typed it took 10 minutes to reach Bob's binos. If Bob at 12:00 uses his MET to send a reply message to Alice, she's not going to receive it at her 11:50, she's going to receive it at her 12:00. Using his binos, Bob will see her receive the MET message 10 minutes later, but it still was received absolutely at the same synchronized 12:00.
1. Nothing in your example shows anything going back in time.
2. Lorentz contraction is not absolute contraction, it only appears such to an observer moving at some speed relative to the thing that appears to be contracted.
3. Relativity paradox and time dilation only explain things speeding up and slowing down in time due to movement relative to one another, it doesn't suggest or explain anything going back in time, even if this MET device allows information to be passed simultaneously in an absolute sense. Besides, the point I'm making about a MET not allowing messages to be received before they are sent is logical whether the two communicators are stationary or moving relative to one another.
4. "Relativity of simultaneity" only covers apparent simultaneity, regardless of whether or not two or more events/observers are moving or stationary relative to one another. The fact that two clocks synchronize and then get out of sync due to time dilation caused by relative movement breaks those clocks' ability to measure absolute simultaneity, but it doesn't prevent a third party from doing so.
"There is no preferred reference frame.", no, but there is such a thing as absolute simultaneity, and it can be measured and proven.
The logic of these points can be shown by adding a 3rd observer. And let's take relative movement out of this for a moment.
Imagine A, B, and C as points on an isosceles triangle, each vertex of the triangle being 10 light minutes apart with watches that are absolutely synchronized against a point D, also exactly 10 light minutes from A B and C. All 4 points are stationary relative to one another. It is now absolutely 12:00 at ABC and it's 12:10 at D. Forget about D now. It was only there to sync ABC's clocks to absolutely be the same time.
A and B have telescopes aimed at each other, and looking thru each telescope at 12:00 reveals a clock at the other end that says 11:50 even though at that same moment, A's clock appears to A to be 12:00, and B's clock appears to B to be 12:00. C has two telescopes looking at A and B, and at 12:00, C sees both A's and B's clocks to b
If someone ever did find out how to transmit actual, usable information faster than light in any way, that would automatically mean that it would also be possible to send information back in time.
No! No! Ugh. No!
Even if you could send a controlled bit of information from A to B faster-than-light using two entangled particles, all that means is that bit of info traveled from A to B quicker than it would have if it were traveling the speed of light. Nothing about this scenario sends anything back in time. If you assume that information you're receiving is traveling the speed of light, it might appear to be coming from the future, but it's only coming from the same time in someone else's reference frame.
Example:
An observer on a 155ly-distant planet with kick ass telescope is watching Ft Sumter about to be attacked. If the observer and Gen Beauregard possess a pair of entangled particles, (even if you could control the bit, which you can't) no instantaneous controlled bit of information can reach the general informing him that attacking Ft Sumter will eventually be a bad idea. Even to this telescope owner, the general is long dead and the battle long over. The information that was instantaneously sent from the observer today (in their frame) reached us today (in our frame). The light hitting the telescope today left Ft Sumter 155 years ago. Even in the observer's reference frame it was 155 years ago.
Nothing about faster than light communication (which is still impossible as far as we know, and highly unlikely to ever be discovered as it would allow sending messages back in time if our current understanding of relativity is correct).
Huh? What? No!! Relativity suggests no such thing.
Even *IF* entanglement allowed for one "controlled" bit of information to be sent FTL (which even this article admits it cannot, after it implies to those with short attention spans that it can), nothing in this scenario suggests anything is moving "back in time".
Just because the sound of a distant drum reaches you faster by wire than by air, doesn't mean you heard the drum before someone starting beating it. Ok, maybe that's a bad analogy. Still... even if information can be found to move FTL does not mean it moves faster than time.
o It's silly to compare a smartphone displayed web map with a paper one. Totally different design, purpose, resolution, and interactive use.
o It's sillier to compare a scaled geographic map with a non-scaled schematic like a subway map.
To Google, search tools for pushing ads at you is their only hammer, and Google Maps is yet another nail, no more no less.
Another example:
A. If you already know where Newark is relative to NYC when zoomed out, seeing road lines is more important to forcing a cluttering label on there just cuz you happen to know it's the largest city in NJ. (And yes, sometimes clutter *is* clutter.) When you start pinch-zooming directly toward it, then you'll see it.
B. But if you don't already know where Newark is relative to NYC and you opened the app to find your way there, you're going to search for it, find it, and get moving.
C. And in both cases, you're not going to see a label for it until your use of the app suggests you need it.
D. And once you search or pinch your way to Newark if you're lucky you'll get ads for LoJack for your car and YouTube videos for treating GSW's, y'know, Newark stuff.
Any large building with lifts etc can have exit times easily unpredictably vary by 5 minutes...
[followed by more "me me me " blah blah about restaurants being unsafe to wait inside, apparently]
Oh lordy... Hey how about this? Request the uber when you're ready to be picked up.
Or, if you're not in control of the variables of your availability, simply remove those variables. (ie, don't request an uber until after your ride on the lift is over?)
If you wanna cut shit close, then you're screwing with someone else's time. And if you don't mind f'king with uber's time, then pay extra for it.
There's fear that allowing same-sex marriage could result in people suing churches for refusing to perform them.
Baloney. And even then, not at all due to your "courts have ignored the constitution" thing which, while I agree with you, is a whole nuther topic.
Churches have always and already exercise their right to choose which marriages to officiate and which ones not. This ceremony, in a place of worship, is typically restricted to their own members or at least adherents of that church's particular faith. Governments haven't at all (or to any significant degree) put any pressure on any church anywhere in the US to force any of them to officiate anyone's marriage, same sex or otherwise.
For example, good luck trying to get married in a mormon church if you're not mormon, a synagogue if you're not jewish, by a priest if you're not catholic. Government hasn't, doesn't, and shouldn't care or interfere.
It's important not to conflate marriage as a civil contract and marriage as a sacrament (or equivalent) overseen by a church's (or equivalent) clergy (or equivalent). A government allowing same-sex marriages has no impact, zero, zilch, none, over that government's desire or ability to force a church and church to officiate it.
Maybe a better solution is to get government out of the "marriage" business anyway. Let's make it so that you can get a fully-encompassing, general-power-of-attorney civil union from the government. Then if you want, have that officiated in your place of worship, or not.
It's time for national units to finally be put out to pasture. Both US units and UK units.
-uso.
Exactly.
But here's part of the US problem:
The mission of the US National Institute of Standards and Technology is to "establish [metric] as the preferred system of weights and measures in the US " and to provide "leadership and assistance on [metric] use and conversion ".
However, for the past 6 years, the director of that institute was a guy (Patrick Gallagher) who was quoted as saying "choose to live your life in metric in you want ".
So much for metric. Actually, so much for "standards".
Of course most don't; tiny fraction of 1% safe bet? But that's their choice, not the fault of the service.
Ok, your two friends are awesome. But my response to your point otherwise stands.
1. Don't like the terms, don't use the service.
2. Choose not to read the terms, then one should accept what happens.
A sample size of 550 from a Texas population of 24 million, effectively randomized, with an unknown response distribution, provides a +/-5% margin of error with a confidence level of 98%.
And I won't be citing Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a source.
Slashdot Mirror
You are required to register your vehicle and display proof of that registration in the open. Then you chose to drive that vehicle onto SOMEONE ELSE's property. That property owner decided to capture that information that you are legally required to display, in the open, and sell it.
Sounds pretty shitty of them, I agree. But then you have the right to not drive onto someone else's property.
Hehehh... Your laughably smug reply is not nearly enough to mask the fact that you're simply and irrecoverably wrong, and we're all pretty sure you know it.
You own a vehicle and you register it with the state. No one's had a problem with that for many decades. It's actually done a lot of good for us as a society. Now you decide to drive around, in public, onto a commercial vendor's property, and they take public pics and sell that to anyone who believes that data is of value.
The fact that only recently the technology exists for any idiot to capture, distribute, process, analyze, and act upon this otherwise public volunteered information doesn't mean that something that's been going on for many decades is now suddenly wrong. Obscurity is not security. The sudden removal of obscurity doesn't mean that the lack of security or the lack of commonly understood disclosure is now suddenly the problem. Can't believe a slashdot reader would have to be reminded of that. I guess mall owners are now going to have to post "voluntary entry onto these premises provides consent to be photographed". So thanks. Another sign. Or maybe you're an attorney.
He didn't say that FB cares about people, he just said that the level of "care" a provider shows its users, is not at all connected to whether or not the provider charges users directly.
The only "care" the user or the provider need to show is that which is spelled out in the ToS.
Beyond that, Apple cares that people keep buying, and FB cares that people keep connecting. How is this a problem?
Hey, asshole. Read this. *emphasis mine)
CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Wow... Hilarious that your rude response proves MY point and opposes your own.
Let's see if you can follow this. I'll try one more time. More slowly this time... See if you can keep up.
If you still can't grasp the important difference between your error and the truth, try XKCD's take on the subject. And then maybe go back to high school, cuz it's obvious you missed a few days.
In other words, if you're going to be smug, first be correct.
That phrase does not mean what you think it does.
It means that you can't be arrested for talking trash about the government.
If you're being sarcastic, then dilly dilly!
Else, no, it doesn't mean what YOU think it does.
The first amendment has nothing to do with "trash talking the government", egads, man...
doing so would set a bad precedent that some other person ... will expect a pardon for that
Pardons don't create precedents, especially since granting them is within the sole power and discretion of one person, who in this case will not be holding that position much longer.
So...
o If you mean some kind of legally binding precedent; that is obviously false.
o If you mean some legally arguable precedent that you're saying creates an "expectation" for some judge or jury to decide, also false, since the next situation if any will be a different president with his/her own discretion, and pardons don't involve the courts.
o If you mean some general expectation that might put more "hey, why not" public relations pressure or political cost on the next president in a similar situation, also false; and quite a stretch at that.
Thanks. I really appreciate the continued replies and additional information.
I think perhaps I'm about to be the first person on an interwebz discussion forum to admit that, when it comes to this topic, the stuff I don't know and don't understand turned out to be greater than what I thought I knew and understood.
It's pretty clear that I have a lot more reading and learning and wrapping my head around this to do (and a few more lightbulb moments to experience) before I go poppin' off with "what, huh, no" about what your said in your original reply.
Thanks again for all the info, examples, and references.
Sounds like we agree with the fact that a MET wouldn't cause any "you received it before I sent it" type of paradoxes so long as no one in the scenario is moving relative to one another.
Ok, first... relatively stationary things:
>>I think you misunderstood the setup. You are only talking about Alice and Bob, but left out the crucial third participant Carol
I did that on purpose. Meaning, I was trying to simplify the variables so that my example can remain focused on whether or not a MET device sending something FTL might run the risk of exhibiting the "received before sent" paradox. I still kinda stand behind the idea that, as long as no one is moving relative to one another, the fact that a MET message goes faster than light, doesn't mean it goes backward in time, despite the fact that speed-of-light observations of the actions might make it appear so.
Ok, onward to things that are relatively moving...
While my mind is still not seeing anything in your examples where something went back in time, I'll concede that I guess my understanding of all of this is incomplete. Especially the spinning example. And I'll admit while I remember the ladder example from school, I was always pretty convinced it was only trying to explain "apparent" size/location/timing. I understand speed of light. I understand time-dilation of things moving relative to other things (i've always found the twin paradox easy to understand), and I understand perfectly how these things are proven and well known as measured by airplanes and how GPS satellites/receivers rely on the speed of light in order to work at all. And I was thrown a bit when many (but not all) of your initial examples, and references you included, deal with and explain "apparent" simultaneity. Like, two things that are absolutely simultaneous by someone in the same frame as the events, may actually *appear* to take place before or after one another to other observers dependent on their relative location and motion.
In other words, I still don't get it *yet*, because some of your earlier examples seemed to be conflating things that are apparent with those that are absolute, but then later examples do distinguish between them. I do however stand by (so far) my logical postion that there *is* such thing as absolute simultaneity, as long as we don't confuse it with our ability (or inability) to measure or verify such simultaneity when things are moving.
Off to read more now. You put a lot of time into this, and I appreciate that, and I hope others who read it can benefit from it like I have. Time to stretch my mind a little on this before I object any further.
"magical entanglement transmitter" -- what a great name for it! :-) (let's use "MET")
Despite everything you said, it's still true that some of your examples above deal with *apparent* relative simultaneity, not absolute simultaneity (which can be proven btw, but is a different issue). And while another of your examples does consider time dilation that occurs as a result of relative movement, (both well-known and long proven phenomena,) still nothing in any of your examples indicate anything moving backward in time. Nothing suggests that our MET is allowing for a message to be received (in an absolute sense) before it's been sent (in an absolute sense). The MET doesn't create a paradox.
>>Now, at 12:00, Alice "instantaneously" sends a message to Bob who receives it at 12:00. Looking at Alice through his binoculars, Bob can still see her clock indicating 11:50 and it will take another 10 minutes before he can see her type the message, but his magical entanglement transmitter has already received it.
Yes, the MET has caused Bob to receive Alice's message, because she sent it at 12:00 and he received it at the absolute synchronized 12:00. When he looks at Alice through his binos, he sees what she looked like at 11:50, and yes it's going to take 10 more minutes before he sees her type it. That doesn't mean she hasn't sent it yet. It only proves that light bouncing off Alice as she typed it took 10 minutes to reach Bob's binos. If Bob at 12:00 uses his MET to send a reply message to Alice, she's not going to receive it at her 11:50, she's going to receive it at her 12:00. Using his binos, Bob will see her receive the MET message 10 minutes later, but it still was received absolutely at the same synchronized 12:00.
1. Nothing in your example shows anything going back in time.
2. Lorentz contraction is not absolute contraction, it only appears such to an observer moving at some speed relative to the thing that appears to be contracted.
3. Relativity paradox and time dilation only explain things speeding up and slowing down in time due to movement relative to one another, it doesn't suggest or explain anything going back in time, even if this MET device allows information to be passed simultaneously in an absolute sense. Besides, the point I'm making about a MET not allowing messages to be received before they are sent is logical whether the two communicators are stationary or moving relative to one another.
4. "Relativity of simultaneity" only covers apparent simultaneity, regardless of whether or not two or more events/observers are moving or stationary relative to one another. The fact that two clocks synchronize and then get out of sync due to time dilation caused by relative movement breaks those clocks' ability to measure absolute simultaneity, but it doesn't prevent a third party from doing so.
"There is no preferred reference frame.", no, but there is such a thing as absolute simultaneity, and it can be measured and proven.
The logic of these points can be shown by adding a 3rd observer. And let's take relative movement out of this for a moment.
Imagine A, B, and C as points on an isosceles triangle, each vertex of the triangle being 10 light minutes apart with watches that are absolutely synchronized against a point D, also exactly 10 light minutes from A B and C. All 4 points are stationary relative to one another. It is now absolutely 12:00 at ABC and it's 12:10 at D. Forget about D now. It was only there to sync ABC's clocks to absolutely be the same time.
A and B have telescopes aimed at each other, and looking thru each telescope at 12:00 reveals a clock at the other end that says 11:50 even though at that same moment, A's clock appears to A to be 12:00, and B's clock appears to B to be 12:00. C has two telescopes looking at A and B, and at 12:00, C sees both A's and B's clocks to b
If someone ever did find out how to transmit actual, usable information faster than light in any way, that would automatically mean that it would also be possible to send information back in time.
No! No! Ugh. No! Even if you could send a controlled bit of information from A to B faster-than-light using two entangled particles, all that means is that bit of info traveled from A to B quicker than it would have if it were traveling the speed of light. Nothing about this scenario sends anything back in time. If you assume that information you're receiving is traveling the speed of light, it might appear to be coming from the future, but it's only coming from the same time in someone else's reference frame.
Example:
An observer on a 155ly-distant planet with kick ass telescope is watching Ft Sumter about to be attacked. If the observer and Gen Beauregard possess a pair of entangled particles, (even if you could control the bit, which you can't) no instantaneous controlled bit of information can reach the general informing him that attacking Ft Sumter will eventually be a bad idea. Even to this telescope owner, the general is long dead and the battle long over. The information that was instantaneously sent from the observer today (in their frame) reached us today (in our frame). The light hitting the telescope today left Ft Sumter 155 years ago. Even in the observer's reference frame it was 155 years ago.
>>does not mean it moves faster than time
sorry, I meant "backward in time" not "faster than time"
Nothing about faster than light communication (which is still impossible as far as we know, and highly unlikely to ever be discovered as it would allow sending messages back in time if our current understanding of relativity is correct).
Huh? What? No!! Relativity suggests no such thing.
Even *IF* entanglement allowed for one "controlled" bit of information to be sent FTL (which even this article admits it cannot, after it implies to those with short attention spans that it can), nothing in this scenario suggests anything is moving "back in time".
Just because the sound of a distant drum reaches you faster by wire than by air, doesn't mean you heard the drum before someone starting beating it. Ok, maybe that's a bad analogy. Still... even if information can be found to move FTL does not mean it moves faster than time.
To Google, search tools for pushing ads at you is their only hammer, and Google Maps is yet another nail, no more no less.
Another example:
A. If you already know where Newark is relative to NYC when zoomed out, seeing road lines is more important to forcing a cluttering label on there just cuz you happen to know it's the largest city in NJ. (And yes, sometimes clutter *is* clutter.) When you start pinch-zooming directly toward it, then you'll see it.
B. But if you don't already know where Newark is relative to NYC and you opened the app to find your way there, you're going to search for it, find it, and get moving.
C. And in both cases, you're not going to see a label for it until your use of the app suggests you need it.
D. And once you search or pinch your way to Newark if you're lucky you'll get ads for LoJack for your car and YouTube videos for treating GSW's, y'know, Newark stuff.
Any large building with lifts etc can have exit times easily unpredictably vary by 5 minutes...
[followed by more "me me me " blah blah about restaurants being unsafe to wait inside, apparently]
Oh lordy... Hey how about this? Request the uber when you're ready to be picked up. Or, if you're not in control of the variables of your availability, simply remove those variables. (ie, don't request an uber until after your ride on the lift is over?) If you wanna cut shit close, then you're screwing with someone else's time. And if you don't mind f'king with uber's time, then pay extra for it.
who waits "2 fucking hours" for an uber? something's def not right about this story.
There's fear that allowing same-sex marriage could result in people suing churches for refusing to perform them.
Baloney. And even then, not at all due to your "courts have ignored the constitution" thing which, while I agree with you, is a whole nuther topic.
Churches have always and already exercise their right to choose which marriages to officiate and which ones not. This ceremony, in a place of worship, is typically restricted to their own members or at least adherents of that church's particular faith. Governments haven't at all (or to any significant degree) put any pressure on any church anywhere in the US to force any of them to officiate anyone's marriage, same sex or otherwise.
For example, good luck trying to get married in a mormon church if you're not mormon, a synagogue if you're not jewish, by a priest if you're not catholic. Government hasn't, doesn't, and shouldn't care or interfere.
It's important not to conflate marriage as a civil contract and marriage as a sacrament (or equivalent) overseen by a church's (or equivalent) clergy (or equivalent). A government allowing same-sex marriages has no impact, zero, zilch, none, over that government's desire or ability to force a church and church to officiate it.
Maybe a better solution is to get government out of the "marriage" business anyway. Let's make it so that you can get a fully-encompassing, general-power-of-attorney civil union from the government. Then if you want, have that officiated in your place of worship, or not.
It's time for national units to finally be put out to pasture. Both US units and UK units.
-uso.
Exactly.
But here's part of the US problem:
The mission of the US National Institute of Standards and Technology is to " establish [metric] as the preferred system of weights and measures in the US " and to provide " leadership and assistance on [metric] use and conversion ".
However, for the past 6 years, the director of that institute was a guy (Patrick Gallagher) who was quoted as saying " choose to live your life in metric in you want ".
So much for metric. Actually, so much for "standards".
But if the screen is already matte to begin with, you can't sell adhesive matte sheets for $20 a pop.
Of course most don't; tiny fraction of 1% safe bet? But that's their choice, not the fault of the service. Ok, your two friends are awesome. But my response to your point otherwise stands. 1. Don't like the terms, don't use the service. 2. Choose not to read the terms, then one should accept what happens.
Point being you have two friends who don't read Terms of Service and who don't keep local copies of files nor backups. Got it. Damn you Facebook!!
More accurately...
A sample size of 550 from a Texas population of 24 million, effectively randomized, with an unknown response distribution, provides a +/-5% margin of error with a confidence level of 98%.
And I won't be citing Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a source.
The story is about the brain. So what's with the "heart" graphic?
>Does it need to be an original idea for them to implement it?
Of course not, but normally one asks for feedback about a new idea, not one that's already well established and the pros/cons well understood.
But I might still can use this 20k drive as a flywheel to store energy and lighten the load on my overheating laptop battery. ;-)
>I prefer to write, and read, long well thought out messages.
I used to have that problem. Pushed myself into conciseness rehab once I figured out my coworkers weren't reading them.
You lost me halfway through your second sentence... Zzzzz... Luckily I woke up in time for your invite to "the local pub". Meet you there dude.