Sure... but the cost of going to the movies as often as I watch something on my HDTV in HD, or use it as a monitor for my computer, or use it as a monitor for gaming, or use it to watch movies would certainly be more expensive than renting a seat for all of those things.
I'm in the top 2% and I used to hang tobacco for a living seasonally. The money from that partially paid for college.
Oh, wait, I'm the exception and not the norm? Well maybe you shouldn't make broad and unsupportable generalizations that fail to prove your point. Oh, and thanks for smoking. You contributed to my education.
Oh, I don't know. CNN interviewed people from the TEA parties and the people that disagreed with them. FOX news was unabashedly positive. MSNBC covered them but had a definite "what the Hell are them complaining about" bent. Frankly, they covered it in a way that was exactly in line with what I expected. I think my only issue with them was that they were protesting on the day that the 2008 taxes were filed. If they had waited a year they'd be protesting on the right date.
And, as much as I dislike anyone chastising people that question government, at least you are not a social pariah if you dare to disagree. I recall what happened in the year after the World Trade Center bombing on September 11th, 2001. Anyone, and I was included, who dared to disagree about things like the PATRIOT act was a terrorist sympathizer or Un-American. I literally had a coworker tell me I should leave the country because I thought that the powers it granted were too sweeping. Others who agreed with me were frightened of professional repercussions if they commented on it. We aren't at that level yet, so question and criticize. I'm right there with you!
This isn't even a Bill that has been considered by Congress. This is a Bill that might be introduced soon. The President hasn't even had the opportunity to veto it yet.
But more to the point, this is a Bill that we already have laws to cover. Taxes aren't going up, you're supposed be paying sales tax on mail order purchases outside of your state. I admit that most people don't bother, but there you have it. Your taxes aren't going up, but the number of redundant laws might be. This happening one day after President Obama promised to simplify the tax code is something I find to be funny.
Oh, I don't know. I've observed bacteria directly through a microscope. Granted, it has only been around for hundreds of years, but I don't consider it a "mystical tool".
Additionally, I have seen the effects of bacteria, as witnessed through a microscope that would reasonably allow me to come to the conclusion, without claiming "magic", that they do influence the hosts and environments in which they live.
Demons, on the other hand, I can't witness since I can't go to Hell and observe them in their supposedly natural environment. I can't witness them corrupting the youth or taking the form of serpents and offering apples to young women not wearing much.
I see your point, that some things ascribed to demons from ancient times were really bacteria. However, I don't see the point of observing that. We know that already, which is why we don't ascribe demons to anything outside of religious or mythical realms anymore.
You know what I would love to see? A citation, link, or any proof that this is true. I'm 100% serious, if true this should be shouted from the rooftops and carried by every major news agency.
insofar as this is a mess that the bush administration created,
Is this going to be his excuse for his lack of leadership for the next 4 years? I mean really. At what point is he going to step up and say he's the President now and actually follow it up with action?
Some time after his first 3 months? Nothing personal, but my expectations for our current President are way lower than yours.
Or... and I posit this entirely theoretically, it might be best if we take the approach that both the liberal and conservative viewpoints have some merit and we should work to create reasonable compromises in politics, government, and all laws.
Of course, that's just me talking. But based on the rhetoric and vitriol we see regarding politics in the media, on the web, and in other venues I appear to be the last centrist.
I watched that video, and listened to that audio. Bear in mind that I don't particularly care for either 'big' party and only vote my conscience.
However, the term is pretty clearly "Kill him!". I wish it wasn't, but that is exactly what I heard when I listened to it just now. I didn't want to hear it, and I really didn't hear anything like "Tell us" or "You'll win!".
Charitably, the term "Kill" in a competition (and the Gods know our elections are popularity competitions) usually just means something along the lines of "Win this election" or "Defeat him". Since I prefer to believe that the people at that rally are not actively out to get one of the other presidential candidates, I think that is what the comment meant, and nothing more.
Too true. Parents should be encouraged to be responsible parents and protect their kids when they need it... and teach their children how to deal with what the world has to offer when they need it.
So you ensure that you see all forms of data at all times and read/watch it regardless of your belief about the value of said data? My hat is off to you, for you are omnipotent and omniscient.*
As human beings we censor things all the time on a personal level. I frequently avoid data I feel has little value to me such as TV commercials, news that holds no value, etc. As a parent you need to do this for your child. You are ultimately responsible for him.
Now, that being said you are correct and censorship is not the permanent solution. When, as a responsible parent, you decide that your child is capable of understanding what was being censored you need to stop censoring it and make sure the kid knows what it is. This is where many parents fail, since they never leave the protective mode at all and (just to tie this back to my original point) they then compound on that failure by demanding the that State force everyone else to their ideals of censorship
Censorship is never the permanent solution, but it can be useful as a parenting tool until your offspring are mature enough to handle the data.
*I am making the assumption that you are not making the argument that a child of any age should be presented with violent imagery or explicit sex so I won't go further down that road.
Sadly, it is not a joke. Just read the "living fossil" entry for the justification:
http://creationwiki.org/Living_fossil
I'm not sure when naturalist became synonymous with "believes in evolution" but that seems to be the usage at creationwiki.
The real irony here is that some people will probably reference the wiki as if it were accurate and factual and treat the articles as if they received some sort of peer review from people knowledgeable in the field... too soon?
I never understood parents that want to filter their kids internet connection. They'll have to live with the fact that the world is a bad place, and they should learn that naturally - not all at once when they turn 18 and you kick them out.
Based on the article, he doesn't think she is ready yet and when she is he will happily reduce the filtering or remove it altogether.
This is exactly the sort of responsible and appropriate response that should be encouraged, by the way. We make our own decisions about what we want censored, and we take action to filter it. No running to the Nanny State and demanding that they protect the children.
...you can moan all you want, but if you want the guy to disappear or act more uniformly, then just hope for a sudden influx of really good programmers from some magical place...
Except that in this case he did not fill out his expense reports correctly. It doesn't appear that anyone is denying that, including the plaintiff.
However, the only reason that this case is going forward, from TFA, is:
The law says truth is a defense against libel unless the plaintiff can show "actual malice" by the person publishing the statement.
So his claim is that his boss had malicious intentions when the email was sent in spite of the claims being true. This law appears to only be a defense in Massachusetts, though.
I can't, but there are online legal dictionaries that can give a general sense.
Libel Definition
Based on that, I don't see how the court could have made this ruling, other than the fact that his own crime, and the subsequent email telling everyone about it, will cause his reputation harm.
What I think is happening is that people are blaming religion, specifically Christianity, for all the problems of the world. And when it comes to education the real problem is that people are just fucking lazy.
For all that many in the Church are going out of their way to feel persecuted by the media, non-believers, or what have you, this simply isn't the case. No one is blaming Christianity for the world's ills. The people that are being blamed are those promoting ignorance as a virtue and discrediting scientific research by promoting voodoo and pseudoscience.
In the US it just happens that the group that fits this bill is the very vocal minority of Christians that want creationism taught in schools, want to stymie medical research (for a variety of reasons) and are opposed to things like birth control. No one is persecuting the religion as a whole.
They attacked you - not us. Mainly because of shit you do and have done - and NOT because of some shit we do and have done.
Really? I didn't know that Canada had implemented Sharia law. The people who attacked the U.S. did so because the U.S. is not muslim.
Well, that and because the West (including the US) has been a scapegoat for the hardships that those people have faced for years.
To be fair there is some truth there. During the Cold War we spent a great deal of time in the region screwing around. Take a loot at Kermit Roosevelt, Jr and Operation Ajax for an example.
Never-the-less, the "enemy" that those people were attacking was not the US. It is the entire Western World, Canada included and any Muslim that dares to have even a slightly differing view than their extremist one.
Isn't it ironic that the parts of the ISS that are meant to absorb as much sunlight as they can, actually reflect enough of it to make the ISS the seconds brightest object in the sky:P
No, I'd say it is typical of anything designed by a committee, especially an international committee.
Of course, since destruction of evidence isn't a crime. Brilliant!
One presumes it is at least a lesser crime, and of course, accidents do happen.
Lesser crime, possibly, but you'd be hard pressed to convince any reasonable jury that you didn't lead someone into entering that password, protestations of innocence after the fact or not.
Now, a password that decrypted a file, but showed a completely different set of files would be useful. Blatantly destroying the file less so.
Slashdot Mirror
So I win either way?
Sure... but the cost of going to the movies as often as I watch something on my HDTV in HD, or use it as a monitor for my computer, or use it as a monitor for gaming, or use it to watch movies would certainly be more expensive than renting a seat for all of those things.
I'm in the top 2% and I used to hang tobacco for a living seasonally. The money from that partially paid for college.
Oh, wait, I'm the exception and not the norm? Well maybe you shouldn't make broad and unsupportable generalizations that fail to prove your point. Oh, and thanks for smoking. You contributed to my education.
Oh, I don't know. CNN interviewed people from the TEA parties and the people that disagreed with them. FOX news was unabashedly positive. MSNBC covered them but had a definite "what the Hell are them complaining about" bent. Frankly, they covered it in a way that was exactly in line with what I expected. I think my only issue with them was that they were protesting on the day that the 2008 taxes were filed. If they had waited a year they'd be protesting on the right date.
And, as much as I dislike anyone chastising people that question government, at least you are not a social pariah if you dare to disagree. I recall what happened in the year after the World Trade Center bombing on September 11th, 2001. Anyone, and I was included, who dared to disagree about things like the PATRIOT act was a terrorist sympathizer or Un-American. I literally had a coworker tell me I should leave the country because I thought that the powers it granted were too sweeping. Others who agreed with me were frightened of professional repercussions if they commented on it. We aren't at that level yet, so question and criticize. I'm right there with you!
This isn't even a Bill that has been considered by Congress. This is a Bill that might be introduced soon. The President hasn't even had the opportunity to veto it yet.
But more to the point, this is a Bill that we already have laws to cover. Taxes aren't going up, you're supposed be paying sales tax on mail order purchases outside of your state. I admit that most people don't bother, but there you have it. Your taxes aren't going up, but the number of redundant laws might be. This happening one day after President Obama promised to simplify the tax code is something I find to be funny.
Oh, I don't know. I've observed bacteria directly through a microscope. Granted, it has only been around for hundreds of years, but I don't consider it a "mystical tool".
Additionally, I have seen the effects of bacteria, as witnessed through a microscope that would reasonably allow me to come to the conclusion, without claiming "magic", that they do influence the hosts and environments in which they live.
Demons, on the other hand, I can't witness since I can't go to Hell and observe them in their supposedly natural environment. I can't witness them corrupting the youth or taking the form of serpents and offering apples to young women not wearing much.
I see your point, that some things ascribed to demons from ancient times were really bacteria. However, I don't see the point of observing that. We know that already, which is why we don't ascribe demons to anything outside of religious or mythical realms anymore.
Thank you for that. I'll look it over when I get home.
You know what I would love to see? A citation, link, or any proof that this is true. I'm 100% serious, if true this should be shouted from the rooftops and carried by every major news agency.
Is this going to be his excuse for his lack of leadership for the next 4 years? I mean really. At what point is he going to step up and say he's the President now and actually follow it up with action?
Some time after his first 3 months? Nothing personal, but my expectations for our current President are way lower than yours.
Natural Storm Enhancement pills?
Hey, in Soviet Russia Hitler liked hot grits you Nazi. Gods, next you're going to tell me that Macs are worth the price and that...
You know, never mind. I don't think losing my soul for this is worth it.
Or... and I posit this entirely theoretically, it might be best if we take the approach that both the liberal and conservative viewpoints have some merit and we should work to create reasonable compromises in politics, government, and all laws.
Of course, that's just me talking. But based on the rhetoric and vitriol we see regarding politics in the media, on the web, and in other venues I appear to be the last centrist.
I watched that video, and listened to that audio. Bear in mind that I don't particularly care for either 'big' party and only vote my conscience.
However, the term is pretty clearly "Kill him!". I wish it wasn't, but that is exactly what I heard when I listened to it just now. I didn't want to hear it, and I really didn't hear anything like "Tell us" or "You'll win!".
Charitably, the term "Kill" in a competition (and the Gods know our elections are popularity competitions) usually just means something along the lines of "Win this election" or "Defeat him". Since I prefer to believe that the people at that rally are not actively out to get one of the other presidential candidates, I think that is what the comment meant, and nothing more.
Too true. Parents should be encouraged to be responsible parents and protect their kids when they need it... and teach their children how to deal with what the world has to offer when they need it.
So you ensure that you see all forms of data at all times and read/watch it regardless of your belief about the value of said data? My hat is off to you, for you are omnipotent and omniscient.*
As human beings we censor things all the time on a personal level. I frequently avoid data I feel has little value to me such as TV commercials, news that holds no value, etc. As a parent you need to do this for your child. You are ultimately responsible for him.
Now, that being said you are correct and censorship is not the permanent solution. When, as a responsible parent, you decide that your child is capable of understanding what was being censored you need to stop censoring it and make sure the kid knows what it is. This is where many parents fail, since they never leave the protective mode at all and (just to tie this back to my original point) they then compound on that failure by demanding the that State force everyone else to their ideals of censorship
Censorship is never the permanent solution, but it can be useful as a parenting tool until your offspring are mature enough to handle the data.
*I am making the assumption that you are not making the argument that a child of any age should be presented with violent imagery or explicit sex so I won't go further down that road.
Sadly, it is not a joke. Just read the "living fossil" entry for the justification:
http://creationwiki.org/Living_fossil
I'm not sure when naturalist became synonymous with "believes in evolution" but that seems to be the usage at creationwiki.
The real irony here is that some people will probably reference the wiki as if it were accurate and factual and treat the articles as if they received some sort of peer review from people knowledgeable in the field... too soon?
I never understood parents that want to filter their kids internet connection. They'll have to live with the fact that the world is a bad place, and they should learn that naturally - not all at once when they turn 18 and you kick them out.
Based on the article, he doesn't think she is ready yet and when she is he will happily reduce the filtering or remove it altogether.
This is exactly the sort of responsible and appropriate response that should be encouraged, by the way. We make our own decisions about what we want censored, and we take action to filter it. No running to the Nanny State and demanding that they protect the children.
...you can moan all you want, but if you want the guy to disappear or act more uniformly, then just hope for a sudden influx of really good programmers from some magical place...
India?
Except that in this case he did not fill out his expense reports correctly. It doesn't appear that anyone is denying that, including the plaintiff.
However, the only reason that this case is going forward, from TFA, is:
The law says truth is a defense against libel unless the plaintiff can show "actual malice" by the person publishing the statement.
So his claim is that his boss had malicious intentions when the email was sent in spite of the claims being true. This law appears to only be a defense in Massachusetts, though.
I can't, but there are online legal dictionaries that can give a general sense. Libel Definition Based on that, I don't see how the court could have made this ruling, other than the fact that his own crime, and the subsequent email telling everyone about it, will cause his reputation harm.
What I think is happening is that people are blaming religion, specifically Christianity, for all the problems of the world. And when it comes to education the real problem is that people are just fucking lazy.
For all that many in the Church are going out of their way to feel persecuted by the media, non-believers, or what have you, this simply isn't the case. No one is blaming Christianity for the world's ills. The people that are being blamed are those promoting ignorance as a virtue and discrediting scientific research by promoting voodoo and pseudoscience.
In the US it just happens that the group that fits this bill is the very vocal minority of Christians that want creationism taught in schools, want to stymie medical research (for a variety of reasons) and are opposed to things like birth control. No one is persecuting the religion as a whole.
They attacked you - not us. Mainly because of shit you do and have done - and NOT because of some shit we do and have done.
Really? I didn't know that Canada had implemented Sharia law. The people who attacked the U.S. did so because the U.S. is not muslim.
Well, that and because the West (including the US) has been a scapegoat for the hardships that those people have faced for years. To be fair there is some truth there. During the Cold War we spent a great deal of time in the region screwing around. Take a loot at Kermit Roosevelt, Jr and Operation Ajax for an example. Never-the-less, the "enemy" that those people were attacking was not the US. It is the entire Western World, Canada included and any Muslim that dares to have even a slightly differing view than their extremist one.
Isn't it ironic that the parts of the ISS that are meant to absorb as much sunlight as they can, actually reflect enough of it to make the ISS the seconds brightest object in the sky:P
No, I'd say it is typical of anything designed by a committee, especially an international committee.
Not mine. Mine usually use hotels by the hour...
Of course, since destruction of evidence isn't a crime. Brilliant!
One presumes it is at least a lesser crime, and of course, accidents do happen.
Lesser crime, possibly, but you'd be hard pressed to convince any reasonable jury that you didn't lead someone into entering that password, protestations of innocence after the fact or not. Now, a password that decrypted a file, but showed a completely different set of files would be useful. Blatantly destroying the file less so.