His highest priority as a legislator and now as the commander in chief is to protect the right to abortion. Roe v. Wade doesn't establish an absolute right to abortion, it determined that a woman's right to privacy allows her to get an abortion. If the right to privacy disappears, so does Obama's sacrament.
This took place less than 5 miles from where I live. The neighborhood has really gone down hill recently. I know we can't condemn an entire neighborhood because of the actions of a few individuals, but I would bet money that at least one of the members of this couple has cocaine problem.
This is just a case of "cokehead's girlfriend blabs and they both got busted', the facebook angle isn't particularly novel...
Funny, the first thing I do is make sure that my browser has a menu bar. When it was turned off by default in Opera, I turned it back on. I spent 20 minutes or so looking for the setting to turn it back on in Chrome. When I realized that it was impossible, I uninstalled that pillowcase full of doorknobs.
I'm 'retiring' from fixing other people's computers. It's not worth the headache. I have two machines that I have already agreed to fix, after that. If I'm not having sex with you or your mother, it's extremely unlikely that I will ever be fixing your computer.
We had MacTCP and Open Transport. I remember an hackish program called Butt Trumped that was supposedly able to crash computers using the unregistered version of Trumped Windsock. I just never gave enough of a damn to try to get anyone's IP address.
Where "slick and to the point" means "hide things that are useful for some, but most don't care about, by default". And clunky means "show things that most don't care about, but are useful for some, by default".
It's not a matter of defaults, it's a matter of possibilities. It's not possible to have a menu bar in Chrome. A standard components of applications for no less than 25 years and those pretentious cocks unilaterally decide to leave it out.
I really couldn't care less what happens with Chrome.
Because there is a huge amount of evidence available to even a casual observer, and the opposition has no answer that is even remotely convincing. This is not a statement of faith, this is a statement of reason. To deny that this position is the correct one is to deny that there is any such thing as truth or reason and that we might as well give up trying.
You assume that there is only one set of "opposition", there are others. Some of those others have some evidence to support their side, but a knowledge filter is at work. If a piece of evidence doesn't fit into the accepted and acceptable model, it is discarded and ridiculed. What I'm talking about, specifically, is evidence that modern humans may have existed hundreds of thousands of years before Darwinists say they possibly could have. Never heard of any such evidence? That's exactly my point.
The problem is not that someone is ignorant, it's that people who are ignorant and unqualified to make any decisions, make those decisions based entirely on ideology, and present their ideologically-inspired beliefs as "truth".
What, I guess, is a step up from doing the same with religion instead of political ideology (hi, "pro-lifers" and evolution deniers), but not by much.
What a load of horseshit!
I'm pro-life. Science has given us the ability to detect fetal heartbeats, fetal brain activity and other forms of fetal development.
I don't deny that ideology is involved. I'm ideologically opposed to the killing of unborn humans, many others like presumably yourself are not.
Millisecond trades make sense, you can reliably anticipate how many ms your latency is and plan your trades accordingly. No one further than the next room away can have any chance of predicting picosecond latency.
This would introduce some randomness into the process and introduce more opportunities for shenanigans.
Or is there some obvious benefit that I'm missing?
I wonder if all the people saying "Corporations are not people" have fully thought through the implications of that stance. For one, if corporations lack personhood then they can't be charged with crimes. Policing them will be much harder when criminal charges all have to be tied to a specific person within the corporation rather than the organization as a whole.
They're morons. Of course Corporations are "persons" under the law. Non-persons can't do anything... Like own property, be taxed or be subjected to legal action. The Supreme Court never said it before because they never needed to. No court has ever declared that water is wet because no one is stupid enough to litigate it.
The US Constitution speaks of "person"s, "people" and "citizens". They are three different words with three different meanings.
Corporations are persons. Each and every human stockholder has the right to free speech, why in the fuck would they surrender that because they own part of a corporation?
I hate Chrome's lack of a menu bar. I won't use that broken UI, getting rid of the URL bar is just another pain in the ass reason to not use that shitbox browser.
Have you ever worked in industry? I have. I have worked in places where a second or two of not paying attention can get you dead.
ALL of these places drug test. It's completely reasonable that in some places, where there are legitimate safety concerns, they want to drug test employees. It's bullshit that you have to be drug tested to push a mop at McDonalds.
I will not provide you with the means to spy on my personal life. If you'll penalize me for being honest, I'll lie. I don't have a FB account. If I knew it was coming, I'd make myself unsearchable and temporarily defriend and coworkers and say that I do not have a facebook account.
The people who have, y'know, studied years to get doctorates on the topics in question are the experts.
Have you ever taken a class taught by someone with a doctorate? They are fallible human beings, just like the rest of us.
You're calling them "so-called" because you're politically opposed to what they say, not because you have any real reason to doubt them.
Comprehension must not be among your strong suits. If you were paying attention, I vaccinated my children. It was a calculated risk and an informed decisions, not just because "the doctor told me to".
Both topics have been the subject of well-heeled unscientific propaganda against the mainstream scientific point of view. Especially AGW.
If that were true, they'd show all of their evidence instead of hiding it.
I'm not a climate scientist, I'm not an epidemiologist but I know when someone is trying to bullshit me.
Ironically, you're being used by the authoritarian wing of American politics, and yet you smugly believe you're a special person because you "question authority".
A shame isn't it? Conformist sheeple like you have made free thinking into something special.
Every time I or my son have received one, we're given a piece of paper documenting all of the risks and side effects that are associated with that particular immunization. You are simply spreading anti-corporate, anti-government FUD. Why?
I'm certainly spreading U. Why? Because I question authority, just because the government says that something is good isn't good enough for me. My feelings about vaccinations are very similar to AGW. I want to see the proof for myself and I do not trust the word of so called experts.
Even if it were true (vaccines cause autism), as Penn & Teller wisely argued: Vaccines SAVE more lives than they kill/damage.
For me it had nothing to do with Penn & Teller, intuitively it makes sense. There's a 1 in 110 chance of each of my children being autistic. Even if the vaccines contribute to that, polio, measels, mumps and myriad other diseases that can be prevented through vaccination have much higher mortality rates than 1 in 110.
You can't exist without taking some risks, so I think you should try to choose your risks intelligently. I vaccinated my children because far worse things could happen to them if I don't.
There is something about the pro-vaccine lobby that bothers me. There's a trust fund setup to pay compensation to people who are injured by vaccines, that was some sort of compromise because big pharma wouldn't produce vaccines unless they got some sort of liability waiver. Well, if vaccines don't cause any harm, why is there a fund?
I think they should be honest with people, vaccines can cause some problems, but you'll be worse off if you get Polio.
At least we can know for certain the people trying to get creationism taught as science in our schools have equally wacky friends around the globe.
Rob, you're trolling. I've seen the accusations made time and time again that there are people in America who want creationism taught in public schools as science, but I have never seen any of the alleged advocates. I think this is a boogeyman. I don't believe that such people exist and I ask you to document it.
3. The FBI can be useful in the actual solving of crimes, but to curb abuses we should prosecute Agents, Special Agents, SACs and directors when they're involved in illegal activity instead of wringing our hands like we do now.
The FBI has abused its power since its inception. COILTELPRO ring a bell? The FBI has been used to investigate the political enemies of powerful politicians since before most of us were even born. Why should it come as a surprise to anyone to find out that they're still doing it?
Slashdot Mirror
Obama is a lawyer, so he understands something.
His highest priority as a legislator and now as the commander in chief is to protect the right to abortion. Roe v. Wade doesn't establish an absolute right to abortion, it determined that a woman's right to privacy allows her to get an abortion. If the right to privacy disappears, so does Obama's sacrament.
LK
This took place less than 5 miles from where I live. The neighborhood has really gone down hill recently. I know we can't condemn an entire neighborhood because of the actions of a few individuals, but I would bet money that at least one of the members of this couple has cocaine problem.
This is just a case of "cokehead's girlfriend blabs and they both got busted', the facebook angle isn't particularly novel...
LK
Why not just do everything an hour earlier?
LK
I have more karma than you have modpoints, Fanboy!
Funny, the first thing I do is make sure that my browser has a menu bar. When it was turned off by default in Opera, I turned it back on. I spent 20 minutes or so looking for the setting to turn it back on in Chrome. When I realized that it was impossible, I uninstalled that pillowcase full of doorknobs.
LK
I'm 'retiring' from fixing other people's computers. It's not worth the headache. I have two machines that I have already agreed to fix, after that. If I'm not having sex with you or your mother, it's extremely unlikely that I will ever be fixing your computer.
LK
We had MacTCP and Open Transport. I remember an hackish program called Butt Trumped that was supposedly able to crash computers using the unregistered version of Trumped Windsock. I just never gave enough of a damn to try to get anyone's IP address.
LK
Where "slick and to the point" means "hide things that are useful for some, but most don't care about, by default". And clunky means "show things that most don't care about, but are useful for some, by default".
It's not a matter of defaults, it's a matter of possibilities. It's not possible to have a menu bar in Chrome. A standard components of applications for no less than 25 years and those pretentious cocks unilaterally decide to leave it out.
I really couldn't care less what happens with Chrome.
LK
Slick and to the point. That doesn't mean that I am interested in using it.
Something else that's slick and to the point? My cock. Let's hear you sing its praises.
Chrome's UI is terrible. It's a pillow case full of doorknobs, it doesn't matter in the least if it's the fastest pillow case full of doorknobs.
LK
Because there is a huge amount of evidence available to even a casual observer, and the opposition has no answer that is even remotely convincing. This is not a statement of faith, this is a statement of reason. To deny that this position is the correct one is to deny that there is any such thing as truth or reason and that we might as well give up trying.
You assume that there is only one set of "opposition", there are others. Some of those others have some evidence to support their side, but a knowledge filter is at work. If a piece of evidence doesn't fit into the accepted and acceptable model, it is discarded and ridiculed. What I'm talking about, specifically, is evidence that modern humans may have existed hundreds of thousands of years before Darwinists say they possibly could have. Never heard of any such evidence? That's exactly my point.
LK
The problem is not that someone is ignorant, it's that people who are ignorant and unqualified to make any decisions, make those decisions based entirely on ideology, and present their ideologically-inspired beliefs as "truth".
What, I guess, is a step up from doing the same with religion instead of political ideology (hi, "pro-lifers" and evolution deniers), but not by much.
What a load of horseshit!
I'm pro-life. Science has given us the ability to detect fetal heartbeats, fetal brain activity and other forms of fetal development.
I don't deny that ideology is involved. I'm ideologically opposed to the killing of unborn humans, many others like presumably yourself are not.
LK
Millisecond trades make sense, you can reliably anticipate how many ms your latency is and plan your trades accordingly. No one further than the next room away can have any chance of predicting picosecond latency.
This would introduce some randomness into the process and introduce more opportunities for shenanigans.
Or is there some obvious benefit that I'm missing?
LK
The "problem" is with these self-appointed experts who have never so much as taken an economics class.
If this moronic scheme were made law, he'd then blame "Wall Street Fatcats" for the inevitable nose dive in the DJIA.
LK
I wonder if all the people saying "Corporations are not people" have fully thought through the implications of that stance. For one, if corporations lack personhood then they can't be charged with crimes. Policing them will be much harder when criminal charges all have to be tied to a specific person within the corporation rather than the organization as a whole.
They're morons. Of course Corporations are "persons" under the law. Non-persons can't do anything... Like own property, be taxed or be subjected to legal action. The Supreme Court never said it before because they never needed to. No court has ever declared that water is wet because no one is stupid enough to litigate it.
The US Constitution speaks of "person"s, "people" and "citizens". They are three different words with three different meanings.
Corporations are persons. Each and every human stockholder has the right to free speech, why in the fuck would they surrender that because they own part of a corporation?
LK
I hate Chrome's lack of a menu bar. I won't use that broken UI, getting rid of the URL bar is just another pain in the ass reason to not use that shitbox browser.
Mod away fanbois, I have the karma.
LK
Have you ever worked in industry? I have. I have worked in places where a second or two of not paying attention can get you dead.
ALL of these places drug test. It's completely reasonable that in some places, where there are legitimate safety concerns, they want to drug test employees. It's bullshit that you have to be drug tested to push a mop at McDonalds.
LK
No.
I will not provide you with the means to spy on my personal life. If you'll penalize me for being honest, I'll lie. I don't have a FB account. If I knew it was coming, I'd make myself unsearchable and temporarily defriend and coworkers and say that I do not have a facebook account.
LK
38 Gigabytes per person is enough? I don't think so.
How much data storage do people in rain forests need? How about nomads, bedouins and bushmen?
There are a lot of people in the world who have lower storage requirements than you.
LK
The people who have, y'know, studied years to get doctorates on the topics in question are the experts.
Have you ever taken a class taught by someone with a doctorate? They are fallible human beings, just like the rest of us.
You're calling them "so-called" because you're politically opposed to what they say, not because you have any real reason to doubt them.
Comprehension must not be among your strong suits. If you were paying attention, I vaccinated my children. It was a calculated risk and an informed decisions, not just because "the doctor told me to".
Both topics have been the subject of well-heeled unscientific propaganda against the mainstream scientific point of view. Especially AGW.
If that were true, they'd show all of their evidence instead of hiding it.
I'm not a climate scientist, I'm not an epidemiologist but I know when someone is trying to bullshit me.
Ironically, you're being used by the authoritarian wing of American politics, and yet you smugly believe you're a special person because you "question authority".
A shame isn't it? Conformist sheeple like you have made free thinking into something special.
LK
Every time I or my son have received one, we're given a piece of paper documenting all of the risks and side effects that are associated with that particular immunization. You are simply spreading anti-corporate, anti-government FUD. Why?
I'm certainly spreading U. Why? Because I question authority, just because the government says that something is good isn't good enough for me. My feelings about vaccinations are very similar to AGW. I want to see the proof for myself and I do not trust the word of so called experts.
LK
Even if it were true (vaccines cause autism), as Penn & Teller wisely argued: Vaccines SAVE more lives than they kill/damage.
For me it had nothing to do with Penn & Teller, intuitively it makes sense. There's a 1 in 110 chance of each of my children being autistic. Even if the vaccines contribute to that, polio, measels, mumps and myriad other diseases that can be prevented through vaccination have much higher mortality rates than 1 in 110.
You can't exist without taking some risks, so I think you should try to choose your risks intelligently. I vaccinated my children because far worse things could happen to them if I don't.
There is something about the pro-vaccine lobby that bothers me. There's a trust fund setup to pay compensation to people who are injured by vaccines, that was some sort of compromise because big pharma wouldn't produce vaccines unless they got some sort of liability waiver. Well, if vaccines don't cause any harm, why is there a fund?
I think they should be honest with people, vaccines can cause some problems, but you'll be worse off if you get Polio.
LK
At least we can know for certain the people trying to get creationism taught as science in our schools have equally wacky friends around the globe.
Rob, you're trolling. I've seen the accusations made time and time again that there are people in America who want creationism taught in public schools as science, but I have never seen any of the alleged advocates. I think this is a boogeyman. I don't believe that such people exist and I ask you to document it.
LK
You are correct, I fat-fingered it.
LK
3. The FBI can be useful in the actual solving of crimes, but to curb abuses we should prosecute Agents, Special Agents, SACs and directors when they're involved in illegal activity instead of wringing our hands like we do now.
LK
The FBI has abused its power since its inception. COILTELPRO ring a bell? The FBI has been used to investigate the political enemies of powerful politicians since before most of us were even born. Why should it come as a surprise to anyone to find out that they're still doing it?
LK