And run equally as hard, or follow the same rules.
I'm willing to debate subsidizing your healthcare if I get to help decide how you live. Fair? You prove to me today and on an ongoing basis that you and your family eat healthy food, exercise, and don't take any unnecessary physical risks, and I will listen to your arguments on why I need to fund your healthcare. If you've got a Big Mac in one hand, and a Marlboro in the other, and a case of beer in in the fridge you plan on drinking right after playing full contact hockey tonight, then there is no legitimate argument that I must fund your healthcare.
I believe you have every right to drink what you want, smoke what you want, eat what you want, and do what you want right up to the point that you expect me to pay for the repercussions. You want to take the risks, be my guest, it's your life. But you pay for the result, not me.
So which is it? Do you agree to live as prescribed, in a way that will not generate unnecessary tax costs in the form of your healthcare? Or would you prefer to choose how you live?
You took the words right out of my mouth. For a fraction of a second I felt like celebrating. But I have no doubt that this administration is capable of finding a replacement that's worse.
You've moved beyond my patience with the federal government right there. WHY does the government have a right to define my marital commitment. Who it is to is immaterial. WHY does my marital status have any bearing on my taxes, my health insurance, or anything else!? My whole point is that the federal government should not be subsidizing me because I have kids, because I'm married, because I ama minority or because I have warts the size of Volkswagens on my ass. WTF is the federal government doing in my pants?!
If they listen to one station, and take anything that station says as the one set of facts, and they vote based on that information alone without ever attempting to validate anything they heard, yes. It's wrong.
If you're too lazy/stupid/busy to educate yourself from more than one perspective, then you are too lazy/stupid/busy to vote. So stop.
So your position is that because there's nothing about it produced by Hollywood yet, it isn't mainstream. It must be first sent through the intellectual meat grinder, rephrased and had its content molded in order to be embraced by the illiterate masses.
Only one among the illiterate masses could even formulate that argument.
Are you not advocating support of gay marriage under the law? Is that not forcing your opinion on others exactly as you condemn him for?
Dont get me wrong here. I dont actually have much of an opinion on the topic other than that govt shouldnt be in my bedroom at all unless I am violating the rights of someone (or some thing) in that bedroom with me. But the hypocrisy here is amazing. You are requiring a group to accept something they do not believe in, and then saying that they are horrible people for doing precisely the same to you.
Pick a list for sci-fi/fantasy and you will find it no lower than 5 or so all-time.
Any real sc-ifi enthusiast that has ventured beyond the "quality" offered by Hollywood there is absolutely no denying Ender's Game is not just mainstream, but in fact among the elite. The sci-fi public very much loves Ender's Game. Chik-Fil-A ranks ~10th among the fast food public behind fine establishments like Dunkin Donuts and Pizza Hut. And yet the very act of attempting a boycott of Chik-Fil-A to punish them for the same political position was a spectacular backfire, generating record sales.
In cases like this it appears to me to be less about defending the political position of the boycott target, and more about defending the right of a business owner, or business itself, to HAVE a political position and the right to defend it. No one likes having other people's position forcibly shoved down their throat. It's good to know that when they see it happening to others they demonstrate their distaste.
You could point to exactly the same effect in the protests levied against JC Penny's for hiring Ellen DeGeneres (a married gay woman) as a spokesperson.
(http://jezebel.com/5909347/homophobic-protest--from-one-million-moms-actually-boosting-jc-penney-sales)
Says the anonymous coward. Are you too uncomfortable associating even a pseudonym with your position? Don't want to share any personal information with a long-standing, reputable online community?
Based on the debates I have tried to have with people it appears to me that most don't have the slightest clue whats going on. They are blissfully ignorant. What's worse, they think they are informed. They will snap to with the latest catchphrase and regurgitate the position from the first paragraph of some hack reporter's article that was on the front page of a mainstream media site and fully believe that it is based in fact and encompasses the whole of the topic. They don't validate sources or positions, they don't attempt to read the view of the opposition (which assumes that they know there IS an opposition). They worship at the alter of Glenn Beck or Rachel Maddow (or insert your activist "journalist") without ever questioning or considering any other possible truth.
The real root of the issue here being that they were never taught how to think. They were merely taught what to think.
Given confirmed cases of abuse of power within the federal government to harass or stonewall a specific political group, how could you possibly be perfectly fine with a mechanism that could explicitly map out such a group and it's allies?
If Snowden's job was to analyze data that had passed through the internet, isnt it possible or even probable that he'd be asked to evaluate data that was a leaked?
If that's the case, a person might be granted limited access to a very broad range of classified information. Compartmentalization could become moot, if the compartment in which Snowden existed was precisely designed to evaluate things outside of that compartment.
You are obviously unfamiliar with the level or reliance the federal government has on contract companies. There are thousands upon thousands of businesses whose sole income is from developing and managing top secret projects. This isn't the first or the last case of highly sensitive information becoming public because of a contract employee.
So... The government secretly developed, deployed, and has been illegally managing this mechanism enabling them to spy on every citizen and foreign national that has passed data or made phone calls through the US. And you recognize how it could easily be used to intimidate, coerce or blackmail.
Your solution then is to allow the program to continue and feel safe from it's potential abuse by asking the same people who illegally developed, deployed and are managing it, to follow the rules? Pretty please?
In today's America, the government has less the consent, and more the apathy of the governed. The fact that the populace is so disengaged and ill-informed is the only reason there aren't many more protests in the streets.
Are you that stupid? Or are you deliberately trying to be obtuse in order to create a strawman?
BTW, if you cap malpractice, who pays for the health care of someone who was injured by malpractice? If the slip of a knife causes someone to require tens of thousands of dollars of health care, where is that going to come from?
Are you that stupid? Or are you deliberately trying to be obtuse in order to create a strawman?
If there are tens of thousands of dollars of damage due to malpractice, those tens of thousands of dollars plus tens, or maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars of damages more could be assessed against those responsible. No one has suggested otherwise. This is not a ban on malpractice suits. What's suggested is that justice is not served by a $20million suit to punish a nurse for cracking ribs while providing CPR.
Voting for someone with a desire for smaller, less powerful and less invasive government might. "Republican" doesnt fit that bill, and most people that are looking for the former often vote for the latter only out of lack of viable options. At least the bulk of professional republicans will drive us off the cliff in first gear rather than in fifth.
There are people within 50 feet of me that cant change a toner carteridge in a printer. But you're confident that every brick-stupid idiot in cubes across the country can be taught to code? You might as well try gluing feathers to their ass and teaching them to fly.
You apparently believe that no profession is of value unless it involves a computer. You are among those millions in this country that have dismissed entire segments of the workforce because you need not be concious of their existence. To you food just magically appears in the grocery store, and if it doesnt otherwise involve your daily life in some way then it's entirely irrelevant. Or is it that if the profession cant make you rich while you sit on your ass it's not worth considering. You also seem quite comfortable with the concept that people who provide you goods or service are not worthy of note.
Horse trainer. Horse Showman. Farmer. Painter (art). Potter. Saddle Maker. Welder. Farrier. Mechanic. Bartender.
(Any of these can certainly make a person a comfortable living.)
But just to prove that your "imagination" is based on fantasy, why dont you descirbe how these jobs would even benefit from coding knowledge:
Police Officer. Soldier. Lawmaker. Lawyer. Dentist. Veterinarian.
And dont give me those weird outside cases where there isnt already a freeware ap that will do whatever you describe, or an application designed for its specific purpose.
What you're saying doesnt even make sense. You're describing real-time image manipulation. That's not graphic design. That's coding. It might fall into the scope of an advanced website developer, but its not something that any rational person would expect an artist to produce. It has almost nothing to do with graphic design, except that maybe you're pulling from a base pool of images provided by a GA.
I didnt misread anything. The OP's statements are hard to misinterpret. He (or she) stated quite plainly that the best way to control firearms is to let firearms entusiasts kill themselves, which in turn shows a callous disregard for human life based purely on political position. It follows that this person doesnt actually wish to save lives. He wishes only to save lives HE values.
And while I am a proponent of the 2nd ammendment, I wish no harm to befall anyone, least of all my family. So if I must choose between harming one who wishes to harm me or mine, or allowing me or mine to be harmed, the choice is simple.
Slashdot Mirror
.... if everybody started at the same point
And run equally as hard, or follow the same rules.
I'm willing to debate subsidizing your healthcare if I get to help decide how you live. Fair? You prove to me today and on an ongoing basis that you and your family eat healthy food, exercise, and don't take any unnecessary physical risks, and I will listen to your arguments on why I need to fund your healthcare. If you've got a Big Mac in one hand, and a Marlboro in the other, and a case of beer in in the fridge you plan on drinking right after playing full contact hockey tonight, then there is no legitimate argument that I must fund your healthcare.
I believe you have every right to drink what you want, smoke what you want, eat what you want, and do what you want right up to the point that you expect me to pay for the repercussions. You want to take the risks, be my guest, it's your life. But you pay for the result, not me.
So which is it? Do you agree to live as prescribed, in a way that will not generate unnecessary tax costs in the form of your healthcare? Or would you prefer to choose how you live?
You took the words right out of my mouth. For a fraction of a second I felt like celebrating. But I have no doubt that this administration is capable of finding a replacement that's worse.
If the government issues marriage licenses...
You've moved beyond my patience with the federal government right there. WHY does the government have a right to define my marital commitment. Who it is to is immaterial. WHY does my marital status have any bearing on my taxes, my health insurance, or anything else!? My whole point is that the federal government should not be subsidizing me because I have kids, because I'm married, because I ama minority or because I have warts the size of Volkswagens on my ass. WTF is the federal government doing in my pants?!
If they listen to one station, and take anything that station says as the one set of facts, and they vote based on that information alone without ever attempting to validate anything they heard, yes. It's wrong.
If you're too lazy/stupid/busy to educate yourself from more than one perspective, then you are too lazy/stupid/busy to vote. So stop.
So your position is that because there's nothing about it produced by Hollywood yet, it isn't mainstream. It must be first sent through the intellectual meat grinder, rephrased and had its content molded in order to be embraced by the illiterate masses.
Only one among the illiterate masses could even formulate that argument.
Lets separate the art from the artist. Let's not pay for OSC's works until he stops and apologizes for the homophobic screeds, or dies.
These two sentences are mutually exclusive.
Are you not advocating support of gay marriage under the law? Is that not forcing your opinion on others exactly as you condemn him for?
Dont get me wrong here. I dont actually have much of an opinion on the topic other than that govt shouldnt be in my bedroom at all unless I am violating the rights of someone (or some thing) in that bedroom with me. But the hypocrisy here is amazing. You are requiring a group to accept something they do not believe in, and then saying that they are horrible people for doing precisely the same to you.
Apparently you're very ignorant of the prominence this book has. It is considered one of the greatest sci-fi/fantasy books of all time.
NPR (National Public Radio) has it on their top 100 list of all time at 3rd. : http://www.npr.org/2011/08/11/139085843/your-picks-top-100-science-fiction-fantasy-books
Same at Amazon : http://www.amazon.com/Best-Science-Fiction-Novels-Time/lm/RIBUB5MTVYA03
Tied for 2nd for sci-fi at Wired: http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2012/12/and-the-winner-is-readers-choice-for-top-10-science-fiction-novel/
Pick a list for sci-fi/fantasy and you will find it no lower than 5 or so all-time.
Any real sc-ifi enthusiast that has ventured beyond the "quality" offered by Hollywood there is absolutely no denying Ender's Game is not just mainstream, but in fact among the elite. The sci-fi public very much loves Ender's Game. Chik-Fil-A ranks ~10th among the fast food public behind fine establishments like Dunkin Donuts and Pizza Hut. And yet the very act of attempting a boycott of Chik-Fil-A to punish them for the same political position was a spectacular backfire, generating record sales.
In cases like this it appears to me to be less about defending the political position of the boycott target, and more about defending the right of a business owner, or business itself, to HAVE a political position and the right to defend it. No one likes having other people's position forcibly shoved down their throat. It's good to know that when they see it happening to others they demonstrate their distaste.
You could point to exactly the same effect in the protests levied against JC Penny's for hiring Ellen DeGeneres (a married gay woman) as a spokesperson. (http://jezebel.com/5909347/homophobic-protest--from-one-million-moms-actually-boosting-jc-penney-sales)
Says the anonymous coward. Are you too uncomfortable associating even a pseudonym with your position? Don't want to share any personal information with a long-standing, reputable online community?
Based on the debates I have tried to have with people it appears to me that most don't have the slightest clue whats going on. They are blissfully ignorant. What's worse, they think they are informed. They will snap to with the latest catchphrase and regurgitate the position from the first paragraph of some hack reporter's article that was on the front page of a mainstream media site and fully believe that it is based in fact and encompasses the whole of the topic. They don't validate sources or positions, they don't attempt to read the view of the opposition (which assumes that they know there IS an opposition). They worship at the alter of Glenn Beck or Rachel Maddow (or insert your activist "journalist") without ever questioning or considering any other possible truth.
The real root of the issue here being that they were never taught how to think. They were merely taught what to think.
Given confirmed cases of abuse of power within the federal government to harass or stonewall a specific political group, how could you possibly be perfectly fine with a mechanism that could explicitly map out such a group and it's allies?
Disclaimer : Wild speculation to follow.
If Snowden's job was to analyze data that had passed through the internet, isnt it possible or even probable that he'd be asked to evaluate data that was a leaked?
If that's the case, a person might be granted limited access to a very broad range of classified information. Compartmentalization could become moot, if the compartment in which Snowden existed was precisely designed to evaluate things outside of that compartment.
You are obviously unfamiliar with the level or reliance the federal government has on contract companies. There are thousands upon thousands of businesses whose sole income is from developing and managing top secret projects. This isn't the first or the last case of highly sensitive information becoming public because of a contract employee.
Here's another example:
Contractor at fault for leaking the specs of the Presidential helicopter Marine One
A fairly cursory google search will net you a few more.
So... The government secretly developed, deployed, and has been illegally managing this mechanism enabling them to spy on every citizen and foreign national that has passed data or made phone calls through the US. And you recognize how it could easily be used to intimidate, coerce or blackmail.
Your solution then is to allow the program to continue and feel safe from it's potential abuse by asking the same people who illegally developed, deployed and are managing it, to follow the rules? Pretty please?
What could possibly go wrong?
In today's America, the government has less the consent, and more the apathy of the governed. The fact that the populace is so disengaged and ill-informed is the only reason there aren't many more protests in the streets.
I sure hope you're being sarcastic.
BTW, if you cap malpractice, who pays for the health care of someone who was injured by malpractice? If the slip of a knife causes someone to require tens of thousands of dollars of health care, where is that going to come from?
Are you that stupid? Or are you deliberately trying to be obtuse in order to create a strawman?
If there are tens of thousands of dollars of damage due to malpractice, those tens of thousands of dollars plus tens, or maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars of damages more could be assessed against those responsible. No one has suggested otherwise. This is not a ban on malpractice suits. What's suggested is that justice is not served by a $20million suit to punish a nurse for cracking ribs while providing CPR.
Voting for someone with a desire for smaller, less powerful and less invasive government might. "Republican" doesnt fit that bill, and most people that are looking for the former often vote for the latter only out of lack of viable options. At least the bulk of professional republicans will drive us off the cliff in first gear rather than in fifth.
There are people within 50 feet of me that cant change a toner carteridge in a printer. But you're confident that every brick-stupid idiot in cubes across the country can be taught to code? You might as well try gluing feathers to their ass and teaching them to fly.
You apparently believe that no profession is of value unless it involves a computer. You are among those millions in this country that have dismissed entire segments of the workforce because you need not be concious of their existence. To you food just magically appears in the grocery store, and if it doesnt otherwise involve your daily life in some way then it's entirely irrelevant. Or is it that if the profession cant make you rich while you sit on your ass it's not worth considering. You also seem quite comfortable with the concept that people who provide you goods or service are not worthy of note.
Horse trainer. Horse Showman. Farmer. Painter (art). Potter. Saddle Maker. Welder. Farrier. Mechanic. Bartender.
(Any of these can certainly make a person a comfortable living.)
But just to prove that your "imagination" is based on fantasy, why dont you descirbe how these jobs would even benefit from coding knowledge:
Police Officer. Soldier. Lawmaker. Lawyer. Dentist. Veterinarian.
And dont give me those weird outside cases where there isnt already a freeware ap that will do whatever you describe, or an application designed for its specific purpose.
What you're saying doesnt even make sense. You're describing real-time image manipulation. That's not graphic design. That's coding. It might fall into the scope of an advanced website developer, but its not something that any rational person would expect an artist to produce. It has almost nothing to do with graphic design, except that maybe you're pulling from a base pool of images provided by a GA.
Knowing how to do it is not a prerequisite to being a qualified and effective graphic artist.
Define "free".
Rifling the barrel only helps accuracy. It's not necessary unless the weapon will be fired at range.
I didnt misread anything. The OP's statements are hard to misinterpret. He (or she) stated quite plainly that the best way to control firearms is to let firearms entusiasts kill themselves, which in turn shows a callous disregard for human life based purely on political position. It follows that this person doesnt actually wish to save lives. He wishes only to save lives HE values.
And while I am a proponent of the 2nd ammendment, I wish no harm to befall anyone, least of all my family. So if I must choose between harming one who wishes to harm me or mine, or allowing me or mine to be harmed, the choice is simple.