Well, Mr. Pedantic - that's why I also included "people who think they are LEO" and "who have the power to detain you or impede travel". That pretty much covers 1) TSA, and 2) the pilot pretty exactly, don't you think?
Also, if you'd read the article you'd have seen the reference to the *actual* LEO who allegedly wanted to detain the guy further the next day because "he gave a stupid answer" and "he looks foreign".
"Poke an animal or a person, with a sharp stick, and see what kind of reaction you get - it won't be a smile and a "Let me do whatever it takes to help you...". Instead it will be similar to what this guy saw, by metaphorically poking the bureaucrats that are the TSA and airline security crowd with an offensive-to-them shirt."
That's not acceptable behavior from people who are LEO or, in this case, people who think they are LEO, and who have the power and discretion to detain or impede travel.
To suggest that they should behave otherwise when faced with something irritating or questioning might be a utopian ideal, but it's still the correct standard.
That's not how it works: you don't get to stop someone else's behavior because *you* aren't convinced there's some benefit to you not to forcibly stop them from doing it.
The article is full of misleading FUD and misspellings.
I didn't say - and dont believe - that anything less that perfection isn't worth reading.
If you look at the post to which I first replied, you'll see that it's not exactly straddling the line between perfection and just-barely-imperfect. Unless it was intentional and ironic, in which case it's funny - but I'm sure it wasn't.
You're confusing subjective preferences for style with objective rules for grammar.
Poor grammar and spelling certainly detract from a a poorly-communicated opinion. Are some people using technology to 'fix' what would otherwise be evidence for educational or literacy shortcomings? Sure. That doesn't make those who aren't using them any more educated or literate.
I think that people with a poor grasp of grammar and language rules don't recognize or assign as much weight to their absence. Including, judging from your words, you.
Since the Founders who wrote of the importance of free speech and the government they envisioned to go along with it often did so under pen names and in anonymous pamphlets so as not to be executed, I'm pretty sure they understood the significance and importance of anonymous and free political speech.
There's no requirement in the US to do so, but legislation has been proposed to do just that - and most ISPs do it anyway. Preemptively storing everyone's communication in case you might have a legitimate (says a judge) claim to confiscate.00000001% of it is wrong IMO.
I didn't say it was a good product, or a bad one, or that it was worth it. I said that its place of manufacture should be mentioned as it's relevant to many people - whether it's this particular product or any other, especially in an industry whose manufacturing largely occurs in other countries.
"The company is hoping that consumers will be willing to pay more, though it is unlikely that the “Made in America” lineage will be part of any marketing campaign.'"
People excoriate execs and companies who move parts of their businesses offshore (often rightly, and also often without questioning the policies that contribute to it often being cheaper and easier to employ people thousands of miles away in other countries).
They (and especially the most indignant among them) should be happy to pay a little more to keep the work local; after all, they're demanding that others do it.
Obama reneged on his pledge to make bills available for five days for public review within weeks of being sworn in. This isn't a GOP vs Dems issue. It's a government vs governed issue.
You're not getting a new tire; you're getting a used tire. You keep pushing the 'defective merchandise' analogy though I've addressed it already.
Then you imply that there would be concern for quality of the organ were it to be paid for that somehow doesn't exist now. I think it's silly to suggest that haggling over the cost based on its 'quality' would create more focus on that quality than would the prospect of having to rely on the organ to live for decades.
Organ function can be easily tested. An organ that met some standard of acceptability (which donated organs are also subject to) would be sold from the perspective of the seller on an as-is basis.
I understand the various roles played in the transaction. You said that payment for the donor organs woud "get ugly pretty quick" - but there's no difference between reimbursement for the organ and payment for the surgeon and for the hospital.
You ask what happens if a donor kidney stops working. What happens now? Does the surgeon forfeit his fee or salary? Does the hospital forgive the bill for the equipment and procedure? No. Nor would a donor if the organ were rejected or later failed.
Donors (or their estates) should be allowed to receive payment. The waiting lists would become shorter very quickly. I'll donate my organs if the surgeons and hospitals agree to donate their time, equipment, and expertise.
Wild turkeys are no prize winners. Typically a male has a harem of several females which he guards, often aggressively, from other males. I heard a thud-thud-thud outside my door one morning, and looked to find a make turkey pecking at his reflection in my car (my weeks-old first new car, no less).
If my job were to educate children at a public facility at which their attendance was compelled by law, and also I were paid by taxpayers, then I would expect to have my reviews made public.
Do you really not see the difference? It seems not. The smugness + dumb combo means that your opinion of whether my opinion is worth listening to... isn't worth listening to.
Not sure if you're nitpicking me - I don't disagree that the beating would be a subset of 'compelling'. But it's just that, a subset - and that clause in the Fifth Amendment isn't only about beating or torturing, which was my (correctly stated) point.
Slashdot Mirror
What law is that?
Well, Mr. Pedantic - that's why I also included "people who think they are LEO" and "who have the power to detain you or impede travel". That pretty much covers
1) TSA, and
2) the pilot
pretty exactly, don't you think?
Also, if you'd read the article you'd have seen the reference to the *actual* LEO who allegedly wanted to detain the guy further the next day because "he gave a stupid answer" and "he looks foreign".
"Poke an animal or a person, with a sharp stick, and see what kind of reaction you get - it won't be a smile and a "Let me do whatever it takes to help you...". Instead it will be similar to what this guy saw, by metaphorically poking the bureaucrats that are the TSA and airline security crowd with an offensive-to-them shirt."
That's not acceptable behavior from people who are LEO or, in this case, people who think they are LEO, and who have the power and discretion to detain or impede travel.
To suggest that they should behave otherwise when faced with something irritating or questioning might be a utopian ideal, but it's still the correct standard.
I do the same for my parents' vacation home. Works like a charm!
That's not how it works: you don't get to stop someone else's behavior because *you* aren't convinced there's some benefit to you not to forcibly stop them from doing it.
The article is full of misleading FUD and misspellings.
I didn't say - and dont believe - that anything less that perfection isn't worth reading.
If you look at the post to which I first replied, you'll see that it's not exactly straddling the line between perfection and just-barely-imperfect. Unless it was intentional and ironic, in which case it's funny - but I'm sure it wasn't.
You're confusing subjective preferences for style with objective rules for grammar.
Poor grammar and spelling certainly detract from a a poorly-communicated opinion. Are some people using technology to 'fix' what would otherwise be evidence for educational or literacy shortcomings? Sure. That doesn't make those who aren't using them any more educated or literate.
I think that people with a poor grasp of grammar and language rules don't recognize or assign as much weight to their absence. Including, judging from your words, you.
Since the Founders who wrote of the importance of free speech and the government they envisioned to go along with it often did so under pen names and in anonymous pamphlets so as not to be executed, I'm pretty sure they understood the significance and importance of anonymous and free political speech.
There's no requirement in the US to do so, but legislation has been proposed to do just that - and most ISPs do it anyway. Preemptively storing everyone's communication in case you might have a legitimate (says a judge) claim to confiscate .00000001% of it is wrong IMO.
... then why does it save users' messages after they're deleted?
I didn't say it was a good product, or a bad one, or that it was worth it. I said that its place of manufacture should be mentioned as it's relevant to many people - whether it's this particular product or any other, especially in an industry whose manufacturing largely occurs in other countries.
"The company is hoping that consumers will be willing to pay more, though it is unlikely that the “Made in America” lineage will be part of any marketing campaign.'"
People excoriate execs and companies who move parts of their businesses offshore (often rightly, and also often without questioning the policies that contribute to it often being cheaper and easier to employ people thousands of miles away in other countries).
They (and especially the most indignant among them) should be happy to pay a little more to keep the work local; after all, they're demanding that others do it.
If more money is made available to to students for education, then:
1) more people will become students (intended)
2) educational institutions will raise their prices so as to absorb all the available funds (unintended)
Obama reneged on his pledge to make bills available for five days for public review within weeks of being sworn in. This isn't a GOP vs Dems issue. It's a government vs governed issue.
You think members of just one of our political parties feel that way? Please.
The headline shouldn't be "evil corporations dodge paying their share". It should be "moron spendthrifts chase away golden goose".
The server appears to be in Utah, not North Carolina. Certainly Provo isn't within the NC Board of Nutrition's jurisdiction.
... as cherry picking the data.
You're not getting a new tire; you're getting a used tire. You keep pushing the 'defective merchandise' analogy though I've addressed it already.
Then you imply that there would be concern for quality of the organ were it to be paid for that somehow doesn't exist now. I think it's silly to suggest that haggling over the cost based on its 'quality' would create more focus on that quality than would the prospect of having to rely on the organ to live for decades.
Organ function can be easily tested. An organ that met some standard of acceptability (which donated organs are also subject to) would be sold from the perspective of the seller on an as-is basis.
I understand the various roles played in the transaction. You said that payment for the donor organs woud "get ugly pretty quick" - but there's no difference between reimbursement for the organ and payment for the surgeon and for the hospital.
You ask what happens if a donor kidney stops working. What happens now? Does the surgeon forfeit his fee or salary? Does the hospital forgive the bill for the equipment and procedure? No. Nor would a donor if the organ were rejected or later failed.
So again, I ask: what's the difference?
That's not very ugly. Insurance companies will often pay doctors and hospitals for a second transplant if a first fails - what's the difference?
Donors (or their estates) should be allowed to receive payment. The waiting lists would become shorter very quickly. I'll donate my organs if the surgeons and hospitals agree to donate their time, equipment, and expertise.
Wild turkeys are no prize winners. Typically a male has a harem of several females which he guards, often aggressively, from other males. I heard a thud-thud-thud outside my door one morning, and looked to find a make turkey pecking at his reflection in my car (my weeks-old first new car, no less).
If my job were to educate children at a public facility at which their attendance was compelled by law, and also I were paid by taxpayers, then I would expect to have my reviews made public.
Do you really not see the difference? It seems not. The smugness + dumb combo means that your opinion of whether my opinion is worth listening to ... isn't worth listening to.
Not sure if you're nitpicking me - I don't disagree that the beating would be a subset of 'compelling'. But it's just that, a subset - and that clause in the Fifth Amendment isn't only about beating or torturing, which was my (correctly stated) point.