Ok, so I live in an area that NOBODY has a problem with a boyscout group starting off their meeting with a prayer, but because someone was "offended" in another state, that scout group now can't use the local school for it's meetings. This would go for school prayer as well.
Way to make assumptions.
Anyway, I fail to see why government funds should go to religion, just because you, or even a significant number of people want them to. Fact of the matter is, there are always people that will disagree with your religion and your beliefs, even in your city, and though it's fine if private groups or organizations have religious leanings, giving government money to religions is inherently a disservice to those who have beliefs counter to those religions.
And as a side note, schools are funded partly by federal taxes. Although I'm sure you have no qualms with mandatory or school-sponsored prayer, I'm sure you would have a problem if your money funded a school where teachers interrupted class occasionally to state that God didn't exist and that the bible is just a compendium of Christian mythology, or so that everyone could bow to Mecca and recite their prayers.
It's not about not offending people, it's about fairness and equality. Just as I personally don't want my tax money going to fund school prayer, you don't want money going to fund the advancement or advocation of other religions. Thus, the government tries to stay secular and keep out of the whole religion business, letting everyone practice what they want individually, while preventing itself from advocating one religion over another.
To be honest, I don't know why everyone is so pissed over the ACLU's dislike over the second amendment. I mean, I could understand if they were actively promoting gun control, but.... they're not. As far as I know, they neither help nor hinder gun control laws, and thus, hating them for it isn't really justified, especially when you have groups like the NRA who so zealously guard such rights.
Support them for what they stand for, not for what they don't. They remain a staunch supporter of many other important rights, and thus deserve support, despite their effectively agnostic views toward second amendment rights. The time to withdraw support is when they hinder things you do support, not when they don't support one right amongst a sea of others.
If you don't support the right to bare arms you aren't really a liberal, true liberals believe in liberty and small government.
To be honest, you're probably thinking more libertarian than liberal.
Conservatives believe in big government at the local level (minus taxes and social programs) and small government at the corporate and commercial level, while the reverse is (should be?) true for liberals. Libertarians are small government all around, while populists are (IIRC) for big government all around.
Though, yes, gun rights should fall in with liberal beliefs, even though they tend not to.
Well, you would think that god would know the difference between 30 and 31.4 (in the context, the diameter of a molten sea is 10 cubits, and the circumference is 30 cubits). I can understand dropping the.4, but a whole cubit is pretty significant.
Although, in all seriousness, it's not technically a lawless system, it's just that it works by different laws.... that is "don't abuse animals" and "if you do, don't tape it".
I'd feel sorry for anyone that got the collective hate of the internet, but, at the same time, they're abusing animals, and then posting it on the internet. They pretty much deserve what they get, considering the circumstances.
Besides, the internet has an attention span measured in days, at best. If anyone's really feeling harassed enough, they can just ride it out for the ~ a week it'll take for people to get bored with him.
Well, considering that this isn't up yet, and you need to have both cable and internet from the same company if you want it to work, bragging rights, assuming you have the ability.
Except that when shit like this catches on, we all lose when we get weighed down with websites that get bundled with our connection, raising prices for all of us - including the ones that don't care, while simultaneously lining the pockets of people who already get too much money off their content.
It's nice that someone's attempting to get movies on the internet, but the distribution method is still a dick move, regardless of the content behind it.
Although there are those that just don't know, many, such as the ones that purchase the drmified tunes, just don't really give a damn as long as they get their music.
It's kind of like how most of the people on here aren't vegetarians. Sure, it's an issue, and most of us are aware that most of our food is treated badly before it's slaughtered and has the shit processed out of it.... it's just that most of us don't really care.
I'm sure if you tell the right people that the IT department can see pretty much anything you have on your computer, you'll be able to get some support.
Seriously, it's College; everyone has some skeletons in their closet.... or rather, naked pictures on their hard drives.
Well, yeah, but then it's just a bunch of numbers.
A model doesn't necessarily describe actual phenomenon. It's nice to have it, of course, and the math may be sound, but it doesn't really mean anything, and may only possibly apply to real world occurrences.
Most of us actually don't mind watching commercials. I actually prefer them to paying, because I can always watch more commercials, but I can't always work more. Not to mention, it's difficult to arouse my interest enough via-standard advertisements to actually get me to go out and buy something I wouldn't have already purchased.
I suppose I could see the reasoning if I had a lot of extra money lying around, or if my time were really that valuable, but I don't, and it isn't. Commercials are a small price to pay for free shit on demand.
Seriously, not every sentence needs it's own line.
I mean, I know each and every line seems like it's own individual thought, but that's because they're different sentences.
Normally, it's not a problem, but when you don't have a single paragraph more than a line long in a post that large, you need to use the back space to tidy things up a bit.
Remember - as unattractive as walls of text are, making the spaces inbetween each line in a wall of text isn't any better.
.... You do realize that the essence of this post is "If you're watching it, it's been distributed at some point in time," right?
I mean, if you say that, if you're watching it, it's either been TV or cinema, or on a youtube like service, you're pretty much covering all forms of dispersing content, short of sneakernets.
I fail to see the connection between a desktop client and a payment plan.
I suppose Pandora radio did it, but their content is still free - they just charge for the desktop client, free ads, and a few other things.
I figured the whole payment-thing was just inevitable. I mean, how else do you squeeze money out of people who are watching something for free, if not by charging for them? It's a dumb idea - I'd stop watching if they started charging for the 4 or 5 good shows they have - but it's an obvious one, and the people who make these decisions generally aren't smart enough to realize that - Oh, hey - maybe wringing as much money out of customers as possible ISN'T the best business model, and maybe you can get more money and people over time if you treat your current customers with a half ounce of respect.
They really are lacking in content on Hulu. They have a number of good shows, and they keep them up to date, but, at the end of the day, the only stuff I watch are the things they'd start charging for, which essentially defeats the purpose.
Case in point is the movie half of Hulu. They have one good movie - Super Size Me - which I don't REALLY like to begin with (preachy/not relevant anymore) and the rest are crap movies whose owners are looking for quick, easy ways to make a buck.
I'd much rather just watch more ad's. As it stands, there's about a minute or two worth of ad's per half hour show, with the last half minute not even being worth watching, which falls WELL short of what you'd find on TV. I wouldn't mind watching two or three ads per commercial break, if it meant that the content remained free, or they got more quality content, and less trash.
The president, TBH, doesn't care about copyright anywhere NEAR as much as the collective whole of slashdot, or even the online, tech-oriented media.
It's an issue, I'm sure, but considering that he has to pick a single person out of a short list of qualified candidates, he will probably have to make some concessions, just like the rest of us. As much as I'd love to have a justice that's for laxer copyright damages, I'm way more concerned about other, much more pertinent issues, such as the right to privacy, broad interpretation of free speech, equal rights, etc. etc.
Our concerns will likely be better catered to with Obama's next appointee, although it may still be off his radar. As it stands, however, he's under a lot of pressure to cater to the masses, to add diversity to the court, and to find someone that will definitely replace Souter ideologically quickly and with little fuss. He's in no position to test the waters, and you can't really blame him for going with the most appealing candidate before picking those that best represent fringe interests.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, so I live in an area that NOBODY has a problem with a boyscout group starting off their meeting with a prayer, but because someone was "offended" in another state, that scout group now can't use the local school for it's meetings. This would go for school prayer as well.
Way to make assumptions.
Anyway, I fail to see why government funds should go to religion, just because you, or even a significant number of people want them to. Fact of the matter is, there are always people that will disagree with your religion and your beliefs, even in your city, and though it's fine if private groups or organizations have religious leanings, giving government money to religions is inherently a disservice to those who have beliefs counter to those religions.
And as a side note, schools are funded partly by federal taxes. Although I'm sure you have no qualms with mandatory or school-sponsored prayer, I'm sure you would have a problem if your money funded a school where teachers interrupted class occasionally to state that God didn't exist and that the bible is just a compendium of Christian mythology, or so that everyone could bow to Mecca and recite their prayers.
It's not about not offending people, it's about fairness and equality. Just as I personally don't want my tax money going to fund school prayer, you don't want money going to fund the advancement or advocation of other religions. Thus, the government tries to stay secular and keep out of the whole religion business, letting everyone practice what they want individually, while preventing itself from advocating one religion over another.
Eh.
To be honest, I don't know why everyone is so pissed over the ACLU's dislike over the second amendment. I mean, I could understand if they were actively promoting gun control, but.... they're not. As far as I know, they neither help nor hinder gun control laws, and thus, hating them for it isn't really justified, especially when you have groups like the NRA who so zealously guard such rights.
Support them for what they stand for, not for what they don't. They remain a staunch supporter of many other important rights, and thus deserve support, despite their effectively agnostic views toward second amendment rights. The time to withdraw support is when they hinder things you do support, not when they don't support one right amongst a sea of others.
If you don't support the right to bare arms you aren't really a liberal, true liberals believe in liberty and small government.
To be honest, you're probably thinking more libertarian than liberal.
Conservatives believe in big government at the local level (minus taxes and social programs) and small government at the corporate and commercial level, while the reverse is (should be?) true for liberals. Libertarians are small government all around, while populists are (IIRC) for big government all around.
Though, yes, gun rights should fall in with liberal beliefs, even though they tend not to.
Well, you would think that god would know the difference between 30 and 31.4 (in the context, the diameter of a molten sea is 10 cubits, and the circumference is 30 cubits). I can understand dropping the .4, but a whole cubit is pretty significant.
You don't THINK you won't kill, fight, kidnap, rape, or generally violate any other human during the course of your life.
In reality though, the boobs make you. It sets in slowly, but after the 1000 hour mark, you start eating babies and raping pregnant women.
Seriously.
you're thinking /b/ [4chan.org]
NSFW... although, if you didn't know that, you probably shouldn't be on the internet.
Sry, Replied to the wrong post
you're thinking /b/
NSFW... although, if you didn't know that, you probably shouldn't be on the internet.
Depends, is there a youtube video of it?
Although, in all seriousness, it's not technically a lawless system, it's just that it works by different laws.... that is "don't abuse animals" and "if you do, don't tape it".
I'd feel sorry for anyone that got the collective hate of the internet, but, at the same time, they're abusing animals, and then posting it on the internet. They pretty much deserve what they get, considering the circumstances.
Besides, the internet has an attention span measured in days, at best. If anyone's really feeling harassed enough, they can just ride it out for the ~ a week it'll take for people to get bored with him.
Well, considering that this isn't up yet, and you need to have both cable and internet from the same company if you want it to work, bragging rights, assuming you have the ability.
Except that when shit like this catches on, we all lose when we get weighed down with websites that get bundled with our connection, raising prices for all of us - including the ones that don't care, while simultaneously lining the pockets of people who already get too much money off their content.
It's nice that someone's attempting to get movies on the internet, but the distribution method is still a dick move, regardless of the content behind it.
Same reason we seem to have more SUV's
We don't understand that bigger != better...
Well, that, or we're trying to compensate for something. Take your pick.
I'd say both, in equal share.
Although there are those that just don't know, many, such as the ones that purchase the drmified tunes, just don't really give a damn as long as they get their music.
It's kind of like how most of the people on here aren't vegetarians. Sure, it's an issue, and most of us are aware that most of our food is treated badly before it's slaughtered and has the shit processed out of it.... it's just that most of us don't really care.
I'm sure if you tell the right people that the IT department can see pretty much anything you have on your computer, you'll be able to get some support.
Seriously, it's College; everyone has some skeletons in their closet.... or rather, naked pictures on their hard drives.
Well, yeah, but then it's just a bunch of numbers.
A model doesn't necessarily describe actual phenomenon. It's nice to have it, of course, and the math may be sound, but it doesn't really mean anything, and may only possibly apply to real world occurrences.
Ummm....
Most of us actually don't mind watching commercials. I actually prefer them to paying, because I can always watch more commercials, but I can't always work more. Not to mention, it's difficult to arouse my interest enough via-standard advertisements to actually get me to go out and buy something I wouldn't have already purchased.
I suppose I could see the reasoning if I had a lot of extra money lying around, or if my time were really that valuable, but I don't, and it isn't. Commercials are a small price to pay for free shit on demand.
Paragraphs are your friend.
Seriously, not every sentence needs it's own line.
I mean, I know each and every line seems like it's own individual thought, but that's because they're different sentences.
Normally, it's not a problem, but when you don't have a single paragraph more than a line long in a post that large, you need to use the back space to tidy things up a bit.
Remember - as unattractive as walls of text are, making the spaces inbetween each line in a wall of text isn't any better.
tl;dr, don't use the enter button as much.
.... You do realize that the essence of this post is "If you're watching it, it's been distributed at some point in time," right?
I mean, if you say that, if you're watching it, it's either been TV or cinema, or on a youtube like service, you're pretty much covering all forms of dispersing content, short of sneakernets.
You and me, we are fucking done professionally.
Fuckin' ass.
I fail to see the connection between a desktop client and a payment plan.
I suppose Pandora radio did it, but their content is still free - they just charge for the desktop client, free ads, and a few other things.
I figured the whole payment-thing was just inevitable. I mean, how else do you squeeze money out of people who are watching something for free, if not by charging for them? It's a dumb idea - I'd stop watching if they started charging for the 4 or 5 good shows they have - but it's an obvious one, and the people who make these decisions generally aren't smart enough to realize that - Oh, hey - maybe wringing as much money out of customers as possible ISN'T the best business model, and maybe you can get more money and people over time if you treat your current customers with a half ounce of respect.
Half agreed.
They really are lacking in content on Hulu. They have a number of good shows, and they keep them up to date, but, at the end of the day, the only stuff I watch are the things they'd start charging for, which essentially defeats the purpose.
Case in point is the movie half of Hulu. They have one good movie - Super Size Me - which I don't REALLY like to begin with (preachy/not relevant anymore) and the rest are crap movies whose owners are looking for quick, easy ways to make a buck.
I'd much rather just watch more ad's. As it stands, there's about a minute or two worth of ad's per half hour show, with the last half minute not even being worth watching, which falls WELL short of what you'd find on TV. I wouldn't mind watching two or three ads per commercial break, if it meant that the content remained free, or they got more quality content, and less trash.
Agreed, to a tee - mod this man up.
The president, TBH, doesn't care about copyright anywhere NEAR as much as the collective whole of slashdot, or even the online, tech-oriented media.
It's an issue, I'm sure, but considering that he has to pick a single person out of a short list of qualified candidates, he will probably have to make some concessions, just like the rest of us. As much as I'd love to have a justice that's for laxer copyright damages, I'm way more concerned about other, much more pertinent issues, such as the right to privacy, broad interpretation of free speech, equal rights, etc. etc.
Our concerns will likely be better catered to with Obama's next appointee, although it may still be off his radar. As it stands, however, he's under a lot of pressure to cater to the masses, to add diversity to the court, and to find someone that will definitely replace Souter ideologically quickly and with little fuss. He's in no position to test the waters, and you can't really blame him for going with the most appealing candidate before picking those that best represent fringe interests.
tl;dr - shut up and deal.
Only terrorists use encryption!
Nooo, you're thinking Linux
deleted, or "deleted"?
Maybe both.
But see, if we did THAT, then we'd be communist, socialist Nazis, and we can't have that, now can we?