Look up my comments on polygamy or polyandry in this very thread. There is zero reason why 4 people should not be allowed to marry each other. The only justification I can think of for having a law like that is because it would be a pain in the ass for the IRS, which in my opinion is not a valid reason.
Abusing children and treating women, or any other person, like slaves is already illegal. There doesn't need to be an additional law to try and make something else illegal in order to prevent what is already illegal. That's like here in Arizona where we have a law that says that something like 6 or more unrelated women cannot live in the same house, because of prostitution. That law doesn't need to be there, prostitution is already illegal. There's no reason to outlaw 6 women living together, and there's no reason to outlaw plural marriage.
Okay, I'm being a little snarky, but, seriously, if it's not a difference of opinion what is it?
I said a "simple" difference of opinion. This is a difference of opinion, but not a simple one. It sounds like the person I was responding to was trying to break down what I said into the smallest possible unit, if I would refuse to work with anyone who I disagreed with on any minor issue.
That means that you consider a majority of Americans to be said "bad people".
I'm not sure if it's a majority, but I do have a fundamental problem with anyone who puts their own religious freedom in front of anyone else's rights.
Perhaps you should reconsider your various relationships with all of them?
I am.
Perhaps you shouldn't be a resident of the United States
I've considered it. I have a plan that entails just that.
since the majority nationwide opposes gay marriage?
I wasn't talking just about same sex marriage... why are you?
Because the place where you mentioned "attacks", "unidirectional", "views", etc, is the same sentenced where you used "it" to refer to Prop 8. And this whole discussion is about Eich's support of Prop 8. I didn't realize you were using your post as a blanket criticism of all of the views and opinions of every person that you consider to be on "the left".
At last check... gay individuals had the same rights as straight ones... and while sometimes those rights may not line up with preferences (ie right to marry someone of the opposite sex where desire is to marry someone of the same sex), the right remains the same regardless... you purposely try to pain the issue as something more than its not.
If a gay person does not have the legal right to obtain a marriage license to marry the person that he is in love with, a person of the same gender, then it is a rights issue. Just because I also don't have that same right does not mean it is not a rights issue. The reason it is not an issue for me is because I don't desire to exercise that right.
Again... you prove my point of intolerance from the left... and that one need only call something a 'human rights' or 'civil rights' issue until you make enough people agree through education & politics... or fear mongering and blacklisting.
I'm "the left", am I? Is that because I think that everyone should have the same basic set of rights? What do you believe? Is the belief that someone should be allowed to get a marriage license to marry any consenting adult they want to marry a "left" issue? So, today I learned that I am on "the left", and I am also intolerant. Thanks for the fantastic discussion. I'll refrain from putting any labels on you, because I don't know the first thing about you or what you believe or what you've lived through.
yet up until just two years ago, the President of the United States claimed to be against same-sex marriage... does that mean up until then he should have been viewed as a homophobic and anti-gay bigot?
A homophobe? No, I doubt that he had an irrational fear of homosexual people. Anti-gay? Yeah. Also a slimy political douche for only taking a stand when it is politically advantageous, like every other politician. He's also kind of a lying asshole. I don't think he lives in fear of gay people though.
but of even a florist or baker being able to say they do not agree with the union and cannot provide services for such an event.
Last time I checked, that remains legal. Even here in Arizona. I believe they call that the "right to refuse service for any reason." Of course, those running public businesses providing services to the general public do have additional restrictions placed on them, in that they cannot provide public services to a subset of the public, it's either all or nothing. Private clubs don't have those restrictions.
Yet the prejudices of those who see prejudices everywhere are emboldened to lash out against anyone they deem as not being sufficiently supportive of the current cause celeb... as we see in this case here.
The only time I feel like lashing out is when a religious group thinks that they deserve special treatment for being religious. They don't. I remain the enemy of anyone trying to push the United States farther into the territory of theocracies.
Gay marriage isn't about rights, it is about benefits granted by government. Nothing more, nothing less.
I would disagree, I would say that it is the right to those benefits. That's a technicality though.
In general I agree with you. As far as I can tell, the reason why polygamy or polyandry is outlawed is pretty much because it would be a pain in the ass for the IRS. I don't see any other reason to outlaw it. The IRS could use a little fixing itself.
Somehow... birth control (which was already widely available prior to Obamacare) is now a civil right to receive for free and from your employer.
First, there has been no decision on that case, only arguments. As to whether contraception is a civil rights issue, it sounds like that depends which gender you are. The female justices supported the right of employees to receive contraception through insurance, while the male justices were more skeptical.
Don't forget, just this week we had a case before the Supreme Court over the question over whether the government has the authority to compel private individuals to violate their religious beliefs and directly pay for medications which in their views (rightly or wrongly) cause abortions.
Based on how you phrased that, it is obvious where your own personal bias lies. So, allow me to point out that no, the government is not currently compelling employers to pay for medication. The corporation has the choice to not provide insurance for their employees, and instead pay the fine. The justices noted that this is their choice, and that in fact the fine is less than the cost of insurance.
You've called them "private individuals", but that is not correct. The owners of the company have no requirement to provide insurance. The actual company as a legal entity does. One of the justices rightly asked the question of how the religion of a company can be determined.
They also pointed to the case of an Amish farmer suing the government because he did not want to pay social security taxes for his employees, because paying taxes violated his religious beliefs. He did not win that case. Religious beliefs do not trump everything else. I can start a religion that believes that black people should be eradicated from the planet, but that does not give me the right to murder people. A person who owns a corporation is free to believe that contraception is a sin, but that does not make them exempt from providing insurance to their employees or paying a fine. That's the way it is. If they have a problem with that, then there are several countries where religion and law are the same, they can move there. In my country, religion is not law.
Insubordination is willfully disobeying a superior. Assuming these people are still doing their jobs, asking the CEO to step down is not insubordination.
Do you agree with every political, philosophical, or religious opinion of all your superiors?
From what I've heard expressed, generally yes, I do.
Do you refuse to work for anyone who disagrees with you?
If it is an issue that is important enough to me, sure. For example, if I am interviewing with a company and I find out that the CEO is actively supporting a campaign to restrict the human rights of a large class of people, then that would be enough to get me to not want to enrich that person.
Do you ask everyone above or below you in the hierarchy to step down if they hold an opinion you don't like?
Just a simple difference in opinion? No, I wouldn't, but I don't think we're talking about a simple difference of opinion here.
The reason why the attacks are unidirectional is because gay marriage, or the larger issue of gay rights, is a human rights issue. All you need to do is look back across history to figure out if the side that protects, or the side that attacks, human rights is the "right" side. It's pretty obvious. In the future, people opposed to gay rights today are going to be seen similarly to those who fought against civil rights in the 60s. 2 men or 2 women getting married has the same impact on your life as a black man marrying a white woman. There is no reason to not allow that. The only justification people have for not supporting gay rights is because of their own prejudice.
No one is threatening to fire Eich. The employees disagree with his position and are asking him to step down. It is their right to do so. It is his right to choose not to do so. If he doesn't, it is their right to quit. No one's rights are being infringed upon in this particular situation. Employees disagree with his views towards gay marriage, and so they don't want to work for him. That sounds reasonable to me.
I have a hard time buying the fire argument. It doesn't seem likely that a fire would start and spread to the point that it knocks out communications only 2 minutes after the last voice message, without anyone sending another message. It would seem like that would have to be a very fast-moving fire, like by the time they realized there was a fire the communications were already gone.
Loss of cabin pressure sounds reasonable, and at 45,000 feet people only have about 15 seconds before losing consciousness, but then the question becomes why did they turn and climb to 45,000 feet?
It seems that some catastrophic failure (not necessarily catastrophic to the plane, just the systems) knocked out communications, and maybe navigation, and in their panic the pilots could have flown too high and ended up with a depressurization event that kills everyone on board, while the plane keeps going on the plotted course.
Anyway, I hope the wreckage gets recovered so that these questions can get answered.
There are supposed to be several salt-water activated beacons that should have been activated. You don't find it disturbing that every one of those failed?
It's not really any more disturbing then the fact that it took 2 years to find the wreckage of Air France 447 in an ocean that sees a fair amount of both water and air traffic, as opposed to the southern Indian Ocean between Australia and Antarctica.
It is a reasonable assumption that the transponders were intentionally switched off, given the chain of events following the transponders being turned off and the cessation of radio communication
Like that Washington Post graphic shows, the last communication happened 2 minutes before the transponder stopped transmitting, not after. The flight path, both heading and altitude, was erratic. The plane made several turns in different directions, as if they didn't know where they were. The initial heading after communication was lost was roughly in the direction of one of the nearest airports that would have accepted a plane that size. There's no real reason to assume that this was deliberate versus a massive failure on board the plane that caused loss of most communications and navigation. It might have been the case that they were basically flying dark, without many instruments to show them where they were or where they were going. There's been no indication that anyone onboard the plane would have had a motive to crash it.
I didn't see it on their site, but is there a list of features from Flash that they do or don't support? It seems that some things, like cross-domain requests, wouldn't be possible if they went from Flash to Javascript/HTML5.
- attempting to amend the constitution: check (actually, just ignoring it altogether which is a great deal simpler and easier). - sacking and stacking judicial branch: check (actually, just stacking but that is all that's needed) - pillaging treasury to build his palaces: check (actually, to conduct warfare pretty well everywhere in the world; building a few palaces would be infinitely cheaper and less harmful).
Which debate tactic is where you list several things that are bad and say that they're true, and then correct yourself to say that they aren't actually true and that something else happened? I'm not familiar with that one.
Also, why exactly is amending the constitution a bad thing? Do you not believe in the bill of rights?
Virtual currency exchanges would need to verify their customers' identities and report any suspicious transactions under the new rules.... tailored specifically to the money-laundering and terrorism financing risks they posed
Step 1: create an anonymous currency to allay the paranoid fears that governments are tracking everything you do with your own money. Step 2: create rules that anyone using the currency has to be identified to the government to allay the paranoid fears that anyone could send money to anyone else anonymously.
Ultimately let's assume they are looking around $14B initial investment plus $50M/year continuous cost.
Why are we assuming that? A Cessna 172 has a maximum takeoff weight of 2400 pounds, while cockpit voice recorders are required on aircraft with a MTOW of over 12,500 pounds (5700kg). Why are we assuming that this technology to supplement a black box is going to be required on aircraft where a black box is not currently required?
This is aside from my initial point of calling out the parent because he sounds like a black box manufacturing shill opposed to any technology that might some day replace a black box, using easily-fungible terms like "huge cost" followed up by, well, it's at least a non-zero cost.
This is also aside from the fact that a private aircraft owner does not lose anything when his aircraft is "out of service". He's not losing passenger dollars. If I open up my Cessna or Piper for maintenance it doesn't cost me anything other than the parts. In short, exclude aircraft with a MTOW of less than 5700kg from your calculation and it will be much more realistic. Figure out how many aircraft are currently flying around with black boxes and you'll at least be in the neighborhood.
the huge cost of taking the plane out of service for x amount of time while the device is being installed (even if its installed at the same time as other maintanence is done, its still a non-zero cost)
I'm confused, is it a "huge" cost, or a "non-zero" cost?
Here's a thought - the guy that she interviewed has a career history that he is prohibited from talking about. He sounds like a highly intelligent man who probably worked in the defense industry or as a government contractor or something along those lines, probably working with classified information. He doesn't want to talk about his past, and when a reporter shows up to ask him questions his reaction is to call the police.
And this reporter thinks that this guy, trying his hardest to be anonymous, is going to create a new currency that has the potential to destabilize world markets (at one extreme), and he's going to use his real name?
I doubt that. This sounds like a guy who just wants to be left alone and got shoved under a spotlight because of the name his parents gave him. I hope he sues the reporter.
Slashdot Mirror
Look up my comments on polygamy or polyandry in this very thread. There is zero reason why 4 people should not be allowed to marry each other. The only justification I can think of for having a law like that is because it would be a pain in the ass for the IRS, which in my opinion is not a valid reason.
Abusing children and treating women, or any other person, like slaves is already illegal. There doesn't need to be an additional law to try and make something else illegal in order to prevent what is already illegal. That's like here in Arizona where we have a law that says that something like 6 or more unrelated women cannot live in the same house, because of prostitution. That law doesn't need to be there, prostitution is already illegal. There's no reason to outlaw 6 women living together, and there's no reason to outlaw plural marriage.
So what you are saying is that its not about equal rights.
No, I'm saying exactly the opposite actually.
Okay, I'm being a little snarky, but, seriously, if it's not a difference of opinion what is it?
I said a "simple" difference of opinion. This is a difference of opinion, but not a simple one. It sounds like the person I was responding to was trying to break down what I said into the smallest possible unit, if I would refuse to work with anyone who I disagreed with on any minor issue.
That means that you consider a majority of Americans to be said "bad people".
I'm not sure if it's a majority, but I do have a fundamental problem with anyone who puts their own religious freedom in front of anyone else's rights.
Perhaps you should reconsider your various relationships with all of them?
I am.
Perhaps you shouldn't be a resident of the United States
I've considered it. I have a plan that entails just that.
since the majority nationwide opposes gay marriage?
That is no longer true.
I wasn't talking just about same sex marriage... why are you?
Because the place where you mentioned "attacks", "unidirectional", "views", etc, is the same sentenced where you used "it" to refer to Prop 8. And this whole discussion is about Eich's support of Prop 8. I didn't realize you were using your post as a blanket criticism of all of the views and opinions of every person that you consider to be on "the left".
At last check... gay individuals had the same rights as straight ones... and while sometimes those rights may not line up with preferences (ie right to marry someone of the opposite sex where desire is to marry someone of the same sex), the right remains the same regardless... you purposely try to pain the issue as something more than its not.
If a gay person does not have the legal right to obtain a marriage license to marry the person that he is in love with, a person of the same gender, then it is a rights issue. Just because I also don't have that same right does not mean it is not a rights issue. The reason it is not an issue for me is because I don't desire to exercise that right.
Again... you prove my point of intolerance from the left... and that one need only call something a 'human rights' or 'civil rights' issue until you make enough people agree through education & politics... or fear mongering and blacklisting.
I'm "the left", am I? Is that because I think that everyone should have the same basic set of rights? What do you believe? Is the belief that someone should be allowed to get a marriage license to marry any consenting adult they want to marry a "left" issue? So, today I learned that I am on "the left", and I am also intolerant. Thanks for the fantastic discussion. I'll refrain from putting any labels on you, because I don't know the first thing about you or what you believe or what you've lived through.
yet up until just two years ago, the President of the United States claimed to be against same-sex marriage... does that mean up until then he should have been viewed as a homophobic and anti-gay bigot?
A homophobe? No, I doubt that he had an irrational fear of homosexual people. Anti-gay? Yeah. Also a slimy political douche for only taking a stand when it is politically advantageous, like every other politician. He's also kind of a lying asshole. I don't think he lives in fear of gay people though.
but of even a florist or baker being able to say they do not agree with the union and cannot provide services for such an event.
Last time I checked, that remains legal. Even here in Arizona. I believe they call that the "right to refuse service for any reason." Of course, those running public businesses providing services to the general public do have additional restrictions placed on them, in that they cannot provide public services to a subset of the public, it's either all or nothing. Private clubs don't have those restrictions.
Yet the prejudices of those who see prejudices everywhere are emboldened to lash out against anyone they deem as not being sufficiently supportive of the current cause celeb... as we see in this case here.
The only time I feel like lashing out is when a religious group thinks that they deserve special treatment for being religious. They don't. I remain the enemy of anyone trying to push the United States farther into the territory of theocracies.
Gay marriage isn't about rights, it is about benefits granted by government. Nothing more, nothing less.
I would disagree, I would say that it is the right to those benefits. That's a technicality though.
In general I agree with you. As far as I can tell, the reason why polygamy or polyandry is outlawed is pretty much because it would be a pain in the ass for the IRS. I don't see any other reason to outlaw it. The IRS could use a little fixing itself.
Somehow... birth control (which was already widely available prior to Obamacare) is now a civil right to receive for free and from your employer.
First, there has been no decision on that case, only arguments. As to whether contraception is a civil rights issue, it sounds like that depends which gender you are. The female justices supported the right of employees to receive contraception through insurance, while the male justices were more skeptical.
Don't forget, just this week we had a case before the Supreme Court over the question over whether the government has the authority to compel private individuals to violate their religious beliefs and directly pay for medications which in their views (rightly or wrongly) cause abortions.
Based on how you phrased that, it is obvious where your own personal bias lies. So, allow me to point out that no, the government is not currently compelling employers to pay for medication. The corporation has the choice to not provide insurance for their employees, and instead pay the fine. The justices noted that this is their choice, and that in fact the fine is less than the cost of insurance.
You've called them "private individuals", but that is not correct. The owners of the company have no requirement to provide insurance. The actual company as a legal entity does. One of the justices rightly asked the question of how the religion of a company can be determined.
They also pointed to the case of an Amish farmer suing the government because he did not want to pay social security taxes for his employees, because paying taxes violated his religious beliefs. He did not win that case. Religious beliefs do not trump everything else. I can start a religion that believes that black people should be eradicated from the planet, but that does not give me the right to murder people. A person who owns a corporation is free to believe that contraception is a sin, but that does not make them exempt from providing insurance to their employees or paying a fine. That's the way it is. If they have a problem with that, then there are several countries where religion and law are the same, they can move there. In my country, religion is not law.
Insubordination is willfully disobeying a superior. Assuming these people are still doing their jobs, asking the CEO to step down is not insubordination.
Do you agree with every political, philosophical, or religious opinion of all your superiors?
From what I've heard expressed, generally yes, I do.
Do you refuse to work for anyone who disagrees with you?
If it is an issue that is important enough to me, sure. For example, if I am interviewing with a company and I find out that the CEO is actively supporting a campaign to restrict the human rights of a large class of people, then that would be enough to get me to not want to enrich that person.
Do you ask everyone above or below you in the hierarchy to step down if they hold an opinion you don't like?
Just a simple difference in opinion? No, I wouldn't, but I don't think we're talking about a simple difference of opinion here.
The reason why the attacks are unidirectional is because gay marriage, or the larger issue of gay rights, is a human rights issue. All you need to do is look back across history to figure out if the side that protects, or the side that attacks, human rights is the "right" side. It's pretty obvious. In the future, people opposed to gay rights today are going to be seen similarly to those who fought against civil rights in the 60s. 2 men or 2 women getting married has the same impact on your life as a black man marrying a white woman. There is no reason to not allow that. The only justification people have for not supporting gay rights is because of their own prejudice.
No one is threatening to fire Eich. The employees disagree with his position and are asking him to step down. It is their right to do so. It is his right to choose not to do so. If he doesn't, it is their right to quit. No one's rights are being infringed upon in this particular situation. Employees disagree with his views towards gay marriage, and so they don't want to work for him. That sounds reasonable to me.
I have a hard time buying the fire argument. It doesn't seem likely that a fire would start and spread to the point that it knocks out communications only 2 minutes after the last voice message, without anyone sending another message. It would seem like that would have to be a very fast-moving fire, like by the time they realized there was a fire the communications were already gone.
Loss of cabin pressure sounds reasonable, and at 45,000 feet people only have about 15 seconds before losing consciousness, but then the question becomes why did they turn and climb to 45,000 feet?
It seems that some catastrophic failure (not necessarily catastrophic to the plane, just the systems) knocked out communications, and maybe navigation, and in their panic the pilots could have flown too high and ended up with a depressurization event that kills everyone on board, while the plane keeps going on the plotted course.
Anyway, I hope the wreckage gets recovered so that these questions can get answered.
There are supposed to be several salt-water activated beacons that should have been activated. You don't find it disturbing that every one of those failed?
It's not really any more disturbing then the fact that it took 2 years to find the wreckage of Air France 447 in an ocean that sees a fair amount of both water and air traffic, as opposed to the southern Indian Ocean between Australia and Antarctica.
It is a reasonable assumption that the transponders were intentionally switched off, given the chain of events following the transponders being turned off and the cessation of radio communication
Like that Washington Post graphic shows, the last communication happened 2 minutes before the transponder stopped transmitting, not after. The flight path, both heading and altitude, was erratic. The plane made several turns in different directions, as if they didn't know where they were. The initial heading after communication was lost was roughly in the direction of one of the nearest airports that would have accepted a plane that size. There's no real reason to assume that this was deliberate versus a massive failure on board the plane that caused loss of most communications and navigation. It might have been the case that they were basically flying dark, without many instruments to show them where they were or where they were going. There's been no indication that anyone onboard the plane would have had a motive to crash it.
I didn't see it on their site, but is there a list of features from Flash that they do or don't support? It seems that some things, like cross-domain requests, wouldn't be possible if they went from Flash to Javascript/HTML5.
- attempting to amend the constitution: check (actually, just ignoring it altogether which is a great deal simpler and easier).
- sacking and stacking judicial branch: check (actually, just stacking but that is all that's needed)
- pillaging treasury to build his palaces: check (actually, to conduct warfare pretty well everywhere in the world; building a few palaces would be infinitely cheaper and less harmful).
Which debate tactic is where you list several things that are bad and say that they're true, and then correct yourself to say that they aren't actually true and that something else happened? I'm not familiar with that one.
Also, why exactly is amending the constitution a bad thing? Do you not believe in the bill of rights?
If I really want to tell the cops to shut off all of their cameras, I'm sure they will be happy to oblige.
Fact is as long as they can turn the cameras on or off and the video is in police custody this will do almost nothing to reduce police abuse.
The results dispute your claim:
incidents involving officers using force have dropped more than half, and citizen complaints have dropped almost 90%
Bullets? What about IEDs? Or RPGs?
It seems like they've brought it full circle too.
Virtual currency exchanges would need to verify their customers' identities and report any suspicious transactions under the new rules. ... tailored specifically to the money-laundering and terrorism financing risks they posed
Step 1: create an anonymous currency to allay the paranoid fears that governments are tracking everything you do with your own money.
Step 2: create rules that anyone using the currency has to be identified to the government to allay the paranoid fears that anyone could send money to anyone else anonymously.
Well done, Singapore.
Seems the 9/11 planes' were lost too.
Damnit. Just think, if we would have recovered that equipment then we could have figured out why the planes crashed.
Ultimately let's assume they are looking around $14B initial investment plus $50M/year continuous cost.
Why are we assuming that? A Cessna 172 has a maximum takeoff weight of 2400 pounds, while cockpit voice recorders are required on aircraft with a MTOW of over 12,500 pounds (5700kg). Why are we assuming that this technology to supplement a black box is going to be required on aircraft where a black box is not currently required?
This is aside from my initial point of calling out the parent because he sounds like a black box manufacturing shill opposed to any technology that might some day replace a black box, using easily-fungible terms like "huge cost" followed up by, well, it's at least a non-zero cost.
This is also aside from the fact that a private aircraft owner does not lose anything when his aircraft is "out of service". He's not losing passenger dollars. If I open up my Cessna or Piper for maintenance it doesn't cost me anything other than the parts. In short, exclude aircraft with a MTOW of less than 5700kg from your calculation and it will be much more realistic. Figure out how many aircraft are currently flying around with black boxes and you'll at least be in the neighborhood.
Something like that already exists.
the huge cost of taking the plane out of service for x amount of time while the device is being installed (even if its installed at the same time as other maintanence is done, its still a non-zero cost)
I'm confused, is it a "huge" cost, or a "non-zero" cost?
Here's a thought - the guy that she interviewed has a career history that he is prohibited from talking about. He sounds like a highly intelligent man who probably worked in the defense industry or as a government contractor or something along those lines, probably working with classified information. He doesn't want to talk about his past, and when a reporter shows up to ask him questions his reaction is to call the police.
And this reporter thinks that this guy, trying his hardest to be anonymous, is going to create a new currency that has the potential to destabilize world markets (at one extreme), and he's going to use his real name?
I doubt that. This sounds like a guy who just wants to be left alone and got shoved under a spotlight because of the name his parents gave him. I hope he sues the reporter.