christian neocon is a distinct minority when it comes to discrimination these days.
Look, I know you're a troll, but I'm going to feed you anyway. While most Christian neocons have learned to shut their mouth in public when it comes to racism, check out any conservative blog or Facebook page and you'll see it riddled with hateful anti-Muslim comments, along the lines of saying we should kill them all, or blow them all up, or round them all up and lock them away (ahem, concentration camps).
It's called the washing machine. Laundry is a task that took a fair amount of time per item and was really hard on cloths a century ago. 98% of that has been moved to a robot.
Yeah, so they've done well with the washing part, and the drying part. Most people don't mind moving laundry over from one machine to the one next to it - takes a little time if you have to pull out the things that don't get machine dried, but really not too time consuming. The next most time consuming part is folding...so if there were a folding machine/bot, that would be a massive step forward, especially if it sorted too. People would pay good money for a folding machine.
Only thing what would make it illegal is that they have *some* security in place, it doesn't even matter how dysfunctional it is. Otherwise it would be just public service (at least by the rulebook over the other side of globe).
Why do you think that? I'm pretty sure it's still computer intrusion even if they don't know how to do anything security related. Here's a brick and mortar analogy: If somebody's front door doesn't have a lock, it's still illegal to walk in. And anyway, even if you're right, then having a password, even if it's a default password that hasn't been changed, is *some* security. Intent matters. A lot. Are you accessing their system because you're trying to do something nefarious, or because you accidentally thought it was the free WiFi from the coffee shop next door and you're just trying to check your email?
What do you mean? The government is monitoring them very carefully, since they're the ones paying for the chemicals and loading them in the airplanes. Especially after the travesty of 9/11, where they forgot to take into account the altered burning temperature that results when the chemicals mix with jet fuel when they were doing the calculations for their inside job. But since then, they are saving money by having Monsanto put the chemicals in GMOs. OMG TOXINS!
My county (Maui) is looking at banning polystyrene food containers. We banned plastic shopping bags a few years ago and it's made a huge difference, I used to see plastic bags blowing around, caught in bushes by the side of the road, and in the ocean all the time, but no more.
The thing with the food containers is...most of them will be replaced with PLA. PLA is compostable, where it's in a commercial compost pile over X degrees and with other conditions that help break it down. But what about floating around in the ocean? Obviously it's going to take longer than paper to break down, but has anyone shown how long (or if) it takes to break down in the ocean? A simple google search doesn't reveal anything useful...
He gets caught and will stand trial. Isn't this how the system is supposed to work? What's the problem here?
Exactly, they busted somebody who deserved to be prosecuted. The problem here that when we read a headline (before reading the details) about law enforcement busting somebody, our default reaction is no longer, "good, they busted the bad guy," but rather, "there goes law enforcement abusing their power again, they probably didn't have a warrant and the guy is probably innocent."
Really, lasers seem much easier to defend against than to get to work right... there's so many varied potential defenses for them (ablatives, smoke, chaff, higher thermal conductivity materials, heat sinks, polished surfaces, etc, plus presenting a precisely pinpointable beacon for return fire)
And when the "enemy" comes up with those defenses, the DoD will give defense contractors billions of dollars to figure out how to overcome them. It's win-win-win for everybody (except the American taxpayers). Also, for things that aren't suitable to shoot at with lasers, well, that's what he wants the rail guns for, because the guns in that Schwarzenegger film (was it Eraser?) were really frickin' cool and he hopes they come with the X-Ray vision scopes too.
But as a user, I want to know that my product is genuine. That's why I only buy Microsoft products, because just in case I forgot where I purchased my computer, I get reminded over and over that it's genuine!
Remember when Radio Shack was place to go for electronics hobby stuff and electronics components? Now (or guess yesterday) the few electronic components they have are 10x the price of Jameco, Digikey, Mouser etc, and they hardly ever have what you need anyway. They were doomed as soon as they jumped the shark into being primarily a cell phone store, and jacked up the prices on everything else. It was only a matter of time and it's amazing they sold enough cell phone plans to last as long as they did.
Regardless of whether you think police are overreacting, at this point it seems like it would be wise for the school to tell their students either to collect their boxes or contact the police in the jurisdiction where they placed them to let them know where they are and what they look like (at which point the cops would probably tell them to get rid of them). Seems like having to collect them and place them somewhere else would be better than getting your project blown up.
It is the parent's right to raise the child as he/she sees fit. The more you step on that, the worse it gets. You might be happy with this specific issue, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
So then by your logic it should be legal for a parent to beat their child. It teaches them discipline and build character, after all. So, unless you think that's okay, then you are drawing the line somewhere and your slippery slope argument is null and void.
Would you suggest the government should forcibly have given her a blood transfusion anyway? Jehovah's Witnesses aren't a "new" religion, their beliefs are well known.
Suicide is not illegal, but convincing your kid to commit suicide is, and so is assaulting other people. How would you feel about it if a parent convinced their kid to commit suicide? What if it was for a "religious" reason but wasn't for Christian-like reasons, but instead was for a Jonestown style cult drinking the cyanide laced cool aid? Now what if that kid brought the cyanide laced cool-aid to school and shared it with other kids?
And is it really okay to allow somebody not to go to the doctor if it's in the interest of public health, so they don't spread diseases on to others? No? How about in an extreme example where a kid has ebola? Should parents be allowed to refuse medical treatment, and continue to expose the kid to other kids?
The point here is that your analogies are totally broken, so they prove no point whatsoever. The point is not to look at the analogy but to look at facts: Parent refuse vaccines, their kids can get sick and infect others who had no choice in the matter.
1a) Doesn't anyone know what a pinhole camera looks like?
Do you? It's any box or canister thing that the student had lying around, so it's not going to look like a camera.
Where does GSU get off attaching private property to public infrastructure?
This wasn't the university, it was a university student. It's not like art departments have an internal review board.
At a minimum, you notify public works first so that things like this don't happen.
In which case the CYA bureaucrats would say no. Seriously, why would somebody have predicted such an overreaction? They probably figured the worst that would happen is the camera would be removed and thrown in the trash if anybody noticed. Perhaps in the future with this sort of thing somebody could clearly label it with a sharpie, "This is a student art project. For questions about it please call 123-456-7890"
I don't think anybody is proposing requiring all vaccines. There are some vaccines which kids clearly shouldn't be required to have, like say, typhoid (though if parents were smart they'd give it to them if traveling to certain places). The thing is, which vaccines should be required has already been determined by most states. The problem is that parents can simply fill out an exception form in lieu of getting their kids vaccinated, and that's what needs to be done away with. The only reason on the exception form should be if they can't get the vaccine for medical reasons (e.g. allergic to it), which must be accompanied by a physician's signature (a real physician, not a naturopath or chiropractor).
As far as chickenpox vaccine, I do think that ought to be required. My kid shouldn't have to get sick and miss a bunch of school just because you don't want to pay $40 for the vaccine, because even if I vaccinate my kid, that particular vaccine is only 85% effective. If everyone is vaccinated, the chances of my kid catching it are very small (it's not just marginally effective if everyone gets it!), but if others don't get my kid pretty much has a 15% of getting it. Plus, I bet most parents spend more than $40 when their kid gets it! Doctor visit copay, medicine for the fever and itching, chicken noodle soup...etc (not to mention missed work for many parents!). So yeah, that vaccine should be required.
If your child is going to be attending a public facility, then yes, the government has every right to set the perquisites for attending...I believe society should be able to choose to exclude them from public facilities.
What do you mean by "public facility"? Do you mean government facility? What about grocery stores or sidewalks where an infected, unvaccinated kid could expose somebody else? Anything outside your house is a "public facility" in terms of exposing the public to infection. So then what? Force the kid to stay in the house their whole life? That's psychologically abusive.
Not vaccinating your child just because you don't feel like it is almost child abuse.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all about vaccinations and feel that anti-vaxers are idiots, but I'm a little leery of government making health decisions for my kids.
The exact same arguments could be used against hitting your children. Some parents would say it's good for them - they need to learn not to act up and it builds character, if they are allowed to go without proper punishment they'll grow up to be spoiled brats. However, the government makes the decision that it's unhealthy to beat up your children, and makes it illegal, if you do it your kids will be taken away by CPS and you may go to jail.
Can they tell parents what to feed them?
No, but the government does tell you that you do have to feed your kids. If you don't CPS will take them away and you may be charged with neglect.
So you see...the slippery slope argument is complete logical fallacy. The government already has lines. With EVERYTHING. Like, once you allow interracial and homosexual marriage, what's next? People having sex in the street in front of children? Don't allow people to drive drunk? What's next?
Sometimes I think Americans are just going to sit on their asses and take all of this bullshit until the government actually does pull a Tiannamen Square on some protest, at which point the guns will finally be aimed at the people who truly deserve to have their heads blown off. Politicians.
If the government actually did massacre a bunch of peaceful protesters, the media would spin it as if the violent protesters opened fire on the on the peaceful government agents who were there to protect them, and the machine gun turret operator is a hero who was protecting his brethren and saved the city from certain annihilation by terrorists. Even if there's clear, unambiguous video getting past around every website, you know that won't beat proper media propaganda.
It's probably not a simple "increase safety" vs. "don't increase safety." The specifics matter. Were the safety measures actually going to be helpful? Or would it just create more bureaucracy to wade through and just make it harder to build more power plants?
This is clearly aimed at companies abusing the "Double Irish" system. Seems like the rate should be set much higher, so that companies are punished and lose more than they would if they did the right thing and repatriated profits and paid the normal tax rates on them.
It is also aimed at bringing that money back into the US economy. The GOP corporatists want a "repatriation holiday" where companies can bring in their double-Irish money back into the US tax free. This is a direct alternative to that. Rather than encouraging those company's methods of tax evasion, it's saying, "You're going to pay this tax either way, so the government gets some income and you might as well bring the money back into the US."
Extinction is wrong! The hippies worked really hard to bring measles back from the brink of extinction, they're not going to stand idly by while the evil scientists with their GMO abominations try to send dengue and chikungunya off the annals of history! It's a slippery slope, next thing you know they'll want to use this technology will be used to get rid of those cute little malaria protozoans!
The problem is that they are genetically modified, and the hippies refer to them as "GMO Mosquitos," and thus they are unnatural abominations. They think that the mosquitos will bite people and infect them with their GMO DNA, as if they were vampires that turn humans into giant GMO mosquitos. When informed that they are releasing males, and males don't bite, they either deny that males don't bite, or insist that the few females will still make it through will bite and infect people with their GMO DNA that will cause cancer, gluten intolerance (seriously, I heard that one today), kidney disease, heart disease, hyperthyroidism, IBS, ALS, MS, Parkinson's, birth defects, and a few others that I don't remember. And no, I am not making that shit up and I am not exaggerating, anti-GMOers' grasp on reality is approximately equal to Scientologists.
Even when some ideological icon does run on his own (e.g. Ralph Nader)
He might have been an ideological icon, but let's clarify one thing: He sure as fuck wasn't ideological about his platforms. He was the Green Party candidate and his platform was the environment, but he was pretty much one of the worst things politically to happen to the environment. If he had bowed out and endorsed Gore, Bush wouldn't have been president, simple as that. And no doubt he knew that (despite what he says publicly), because he's not dumb, so he just didn't give two shits about the environment. Or is somebody honestly going to try to tell me that more than half of the people who voted for him would have voted for Bush instead of Gore, especially in Florida where it would have decided the election?
(in Nader's case, the Democrat party immediately started screaming "OMG you'll split the vote and then they will win!")
Which is exactly what happened, despite Nader's denial. Regarding Florida, Nader himself says that "in the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all." Which means Gore would have netted 12,665 votes over Bush, which would have won him the election (Bush won FL by 537 votes). So either Nader is really bad at math, or he's a dirty liar.
Slashdot Mirror
christian neocon is a distinct minority when it comes to discrimination these days.
Look, I know you're a troll, but I'm going to feed you anyway. While most Christian neocons have learned to shut their mouth in public when it comes to racism, check out any conservative blog or Facebook page and you'll see it riddled with hateful anti-Muslim comments, along the lines of saying we should kill them all, or blow them all up, or round them all up and lock them away (ahem, concentration camps).
Whoever creates and markets the machine that does this gets all the money.
It's called the washing machine. Laundry is a task that took a fair amount of time per item and was really hard on cloths a century ago. 98% of that has been moved to a robot.
Yeah, so they've done well with the washing part, and the drying part. Most people don't mind moving laundry over from one machine to the one next to it - takes a little time if you have to pull out the things that don't get machine dried, but really not too time consuming. The next most time consuming part is folding...so if there were a folding machine/bot, that would be a massive step forward, especially if it sorted too. People would pay good money for a folding machine.
Only thing what would make it illegal is that they have *some* security in place, it doesn't even matter how dysfunctional it is. Otherwise it would be just public service (at least by the rulebook over the other side of globe).
Why do you think that? I'm pretty sure it's still computer intrusion even if they don't know how to do anything security related. Here's a brick and mortar analogy: If somebody's front door doesn't have a lock, it's still illegal to walk in. And anyway, even if you're right, then having a password, even if it's a default password that hasn't been changed, is *some* security. Intent matters. A lot. Are you accessing their system because you're trying to do something nefarious, or because you accidentally thought it was the free WiFi from the coffee shop next door and you're just trying to check your email?
How about monitoring the chemtrails here first?
What do you mean? The government is monitoring them very carefully, since they're the ones paying for the chemicals and loading them in the airplanes. Especially after the travesty of 9/11, where they forgot to take into account the altered burning temperature that results when the chemicals mix with jet fuel when they were doing the calculations for their inside job. But since then, they are saving money by having Monsanto put the chemicals in GMOs. OMG TOXINS!
My county (Maui) is looking at banning polystyrene food containers. We banned plastic shopping bags a few years ago and it's made a huge difference, I used to see plastic bags blowing around, caught in bushes by the side of the road, and in the ocean all the time, but no more.
The thing with the food containers is...most of them will be replaced with PLA. PLA is compostable, where it's in a commercial compost pile over X degrees and with other conditions that help break it down. But what about floating around in the ocean? Obviously it's going to take longer than paper to break down, but has anyone shown how long (or if) it takes to break down in the ocean? A simple google search doesn't reveal anything useful...
He was gone then because he was making a movie.
He gets caught and will stand trial. Isn't this how the system is supposed to work? What's the problem here?
Exactly, they busted somebody who deserved to be prosecuted. The problem here that when we read a headline (before reading the details) about law enforcement busting somebody, our default reaction is no longer, "good, they busted the bad guy," but rather, "there goes law enforcement abusing their power again, they probably didn't have a warrant and the guy is probably innocent."
That says something about the state of nation.
Really, lasers seem much easier to defend against than to get to work right... there's so many varied potential defenses for them (ablatives, smoke, chaff, higher thermal conductivity materials, heat sinks, polished surfaces, etc, plus presenting a precisely pinpointable beacon for return fire)
And when the "enemy" comes up with those defenses, the DoD will give defense contractors billions of dollars to figure out how to overcome them. It's win-win-win for everybody (except the American taxpayers). Also, for things that aren't suitable to shoot at with lasers, well, that's what he wants the rail guns for, because the guns in that Schwarzenegger film (was it Eraser?) were really frickin' cool and he hopes they come with the X-Ray vision scopes too.
But as a user, I want to know that my product is genuine. That's why I only buy Microsoft products, because just in case I forgot where I purchased my computer, I get reminded over and over that it's genuine!
Remember when Radio Shack was place to go for electronics hobby stuff and electronics components? Now (or guess yesterday) the few electronic components they have are 10x the price of Jameco, Digikey, Mouser etc, and they hardly ever have what you need anyway. They were doomed as soon as they jumped the shark into being primarily a cell phone store, and jacked up the prices on everything else. It was only a matter of time and it's amazing they sold enough cell phone plans to last as long as they did.
Regardless of whether you think police are overreacting, at this point it seems like it would be wise for the school to tell their students either to collect their boxes or contact the police in the jurisdiction where they placed them to let them know where they are and what they look like (at which point the cops would probably tell them to get rid of them). Seems like having to collect them and place them somewhere else would be better than getting your project blown up.
It is the parent's right to raise the child as he/she sees fit. The more you step on that, the worse it gets. You might be happy with this specific issue, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
So then by your logic it should be legal for a parent to beat their child. It teaches them discipline and build character, after all. So, unless you think that's okay, then you are drawing the line somewhere and your slippery slope argument is null and void.
Would you suggest the government should forcibly have given her a blood transfusion anyway? Jehovah's Witnesses aren't a "new" religion, their beliefs are well known.
Suicide is not illegal, but convincing your kid to commit suicide is, and so is assaulting other people. How would you feel about it if a parent convinced their kid to commit suicide? What if it was for a "religious" reason but wasn't for Christian-like reasons, but instead was for a Jonestown style cult drinking the cyanide laced cool aid? Now what if that kid brought the cyanide laced cool-aid to school and shared it with other kids?
And is it really okay to allow somebody not to go to the doctor if it's in the interest of public health, so they don't spread diseases on to others? No? How about in an extreme example where a kid has ebola? Should parents be allowed to refuse medical treatment, and continue to expose the kid to other kids?
The point here is that your analogies are totally broken, so they prove no point whatsoever. The point is not to look at the analogy but to look at facts: Parent refuse vaccines, their kids can get sick and infect others who had no choice in the matter.
1a) Doesn't anyone know what a pinhole camera looks like?
Do you? It's any box or canister thing that the student had lying around, so it's not going to look like a camera.
Where does GSU get off attaching private property to public infrastructure?
This wasn't the university, it was a university student. It's not like art departments have an internal review board.
At a minimum, you notify public works first so that things like this don't happen.
In which case the CYA bureaucrats would say no. Seriously, why would somebody have predicted such an overreaction? They probably figured the worst that would happen is the camera would be removed and thrown in the trash if anybody noticed. Perhaps in the future with this sort of thing somebody could clearly label it with a sharpie, "This is a student art project. For questions about it please call 123-456-7890"
I don't think anybody is proposing requiring all vaccines. There are some vaccines which kids clearly shouldn't be required to have, like say, typhoid (though if parents were smart they'd give it to them if traveling to certain places). The thing is, which vaccines should be required has already been determined by most states. The problem is that parents can simply fill out an exception form in lieu of getting their kids vaccinated, and that's what needs to be done away with. The only reason on the exception form should be if they can't get the vaccine for medical reasons (e.g. allergic to it), which must be accompanied by a physician's signature (a real physician, not a naturopath or chiropractor).
As far as chickenpox vaccine, I do think that ought to be required. My kid shouldn't have to get sick and miss a bunch of school just because you don't want to pay $40 for the vaccine, because even if I vaccinate my kid, that particular vaccine is only 85% effective. If everyone is vaccinated, the chances of my kid catching it are very small (it's not just marginally effective if everyone gets it!), but if others don't get my kid pretty much has a 15% of getting it. Plus, I bet most parents spend more than $40 when their kid gets it! Doctor visit copay, medicine for the fever and itching, chicken noodle soup...etc (not to mention missed work for many parents!). So yeah, that vaccine should be required.
If your child is going to be attending a public facility, then yes, the government has every right to set the perquisites for attending...I believe society should be able to choose to exclude them from public facilities.
What do you mean by "public facility"? Do you mean government facility? What about grocery stores or sidewalks where an infected, unvaccinated kid could expose somebody else? Anything outside your house is a "public facility" in terms of exposing the public to infection. So then what? Force the kid to stay in the house their whole life? That's psychologically abusive.
Not vaccinating your child just because you don't feel like it is almost child abuse.
No, it's not almost abuse. It is abuse.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all about vaccinations and feel that anti-vaxers are idiots, but I'm a little leery of government making health decisions for my kids.
The exact same arguments could be used against hitting your children. Some parents would say it's good for them - they need to learn not to act up and it builds character, if they are allowed to go without proper punishment they'll grow up to be spoiled brats. However, the government makes the decision that it's unhealthy to beat up your children, and makes it illegal, if you do it your kids will be taken away by CPS and you may go to jail.
Can they tell parents what to feed them?
No, but the government does tell you that you do have to feed your kids. If you don't CPS will take them away and you may be charged with neglect.
So you see...the slippery slope argument is complete logical fallacy. The government already has lines. With EVERYTHING. Like, once you allow interracial and homosexual marriage, what's next? People having sex in the street in front of children? Don't allow people to drive drunk? What's next?
Sometimes I think Americans are just going to sit on their asses and take all of this bullshit until the government actually does pull a Tiannamen Square on some protest, at which point the guns will finally be aimed at the people who truly deserve to have their heads blown off. Politicians.
If the government actually did massacre a bunch of peaceful protesters, the media would spin it as if the violent protesters opened fire on the on the peaceful government agents who were there to protect them, and the machine gun turret operator is a hero who was protecting his brethren and saved the city from certain annihilation by terrorists. Even if there's clear, unambiguous video getting past around every website, you know that won't beat proper media propaganda.
It's probably not a simple "increase safety" vs. "don't increase safety." The specifics matter. Were the safety measures actually going to be helpful? Or would it just create more bureaucracy to wade through and just make it harder to build more power plants?
This is clearly aimed at companies abusing the "Double Irish" system. Seems like the rate should be set much higher, so that companies are punished and lose more than they would if they did the right thing and repatriated profits and paid the normal tax rates on them.
It is also aimed at bringing that money back into the US economy. The GOP corporatists want a "repatriation holiday" where companies can bring in their double-Irish money back into the US tax free. This is a direct alternative to that. Rather than encouraging those company's methods of tax evasion, it's saying, "You're going to pay this tax either way, so the government gets some income and you might as well bring the money back into the US."
Extinction is wrong! The hippies worked really hard to bring measles back from the brink of extinction, they're not going to stand idly by while the evil scientists with their GMO abominations try to send dengue and chikungunya off the annals of history! It's a slippery slope, next thing you know they'll want to use this technology will be used to get rid of those cute little malaria protozoans!
The problem is that they are genetically modified, and the hippies refer to them as "GMO Mosquitos," and thus they are unnatural abominations. They think that the mosquitos will bite people and infect them with their GMO DNA, as if they were vampires that turn humans into giant GMO mosquitos. When informed that they are releasing males, and males don't bite, they either deny that males don't bite, or insist that the few females will still make it through will bite and infect people with their GMO DNA that will cause cancer, gluten intolerance (seriously, I heard that one today), kidney disease, heart disease, hyperthyroidism, IBS, ALS, MS, Parkinson's, birth defects, and a few others that I don't remember. And no, I am not making that shit up and I am not exaggerating, anti-GMOers' grasp on reality is approximately equal to Scientologists.
Yeah, well, I'm an Engineer. Misuse of technical terms is one of my pet peeves. :)
So then you must enjoy eating Organic, chemical-free vegetables, like tomatoes?
Even when some ideological icon does run on his own (e.g. Ralph Nader)
He might have been an ideological icon, but let's clarify one thing: He sure as fuck wasn't ideological about his platforms. He was the Green Party candidate and his platform was the environment, but he was pretty much one of the worst things politically to happen to the environment. If he had bowed out and endorsed Gore, Bush wouldn't have been president, simple as that. And no doubt he knew that (despite what he says publicly), because he's not dumb, so he just didn't give two shits about the environment. Or is somebody honestly going to try to tell me that more than half of the people who voted for him would have voted for Bush instead of Gore, especially in Florida where it would have decided the election?
(in Nader's case, the Democrat party immediately started screaming "OMG you'll split the vote and then they will win!")
Which is exactly what happened, despite Nader's denial. Regarding Florida, Nader himself says that "in the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all." Which means Gore would have netted 12,665 votes over Bush, which would have won him the election (Bush won FL by 537 votes). So either Nader is really bad at math, or he's a dirty liar.