However, if you want us to pay for it, then we will fight it tooth and nail
What if paying for it costs you less than not paying for it? Would you really rather pay for the costs of raising an unwanted child, and the social problems that damaged adults from unloving homes cause?
You're paying for those unwanted children one way or another. You can choose the cheap way, or the expensive way. Make the smart choice.
That's plausible, but I'd like to see someone go through the entire argument. What are the relevant differences in the consequences to each party, and how exactly do their rights and obligations follow from them? Explain to me why a woman can terminate her responsibility unilaterally, but a man cannot.
What else would I do with the hour and a half when I'm done thinking but not yet tired enough to go to sleep? Before the industrial revolution, all that time was filled with chores. But labor saving technology has given me more free time than I have mental energy to be productive with. TV fills this spot nicely.
If this is success, I want none of it. Better to have an agrarian society with a functioning justice system and low levels of poverty than to build an empire at the cost of basic human decency.
You are correct, but in this case it shows one group has more rights than another.
No it doesn't. It shows that different groups doing different things get treated differently. What you want to show is that different groups doing the same thing get treated differently.
Another is that a man has no right to a child until after it is born. The mother does not have to inform the father that she is going to have an abortion. One more place where the right of the male is less than the right of a female. And a male cannot force a woman to have an abortion even if he is the one who has to pay for it for the next 18 years.
I agree that this is unjust. I don't see the connection to separation of church and state though.
Does it? Why can a teacher not take a group of students to see A Charlie Brown Christmas at a church, but can take those same students to see a lecture on evolution at the science museum?
In what way are those two things at all analogous? A christmas story is just that, a story. Evolution is a well supported scientific theory. The first is indoctrination, the second is education. There's nothing about the theory of evolution that implies the presence or absence of any god or gods.
Separation of church and state protects christians just as much as it does atheists. If a biology teacher were to say to his class "Evolution is proof that God does not exist", that would be good cause to sue the teacher and/or the school under the 1st amendment.
I do object to a lot of porn out there. The degrading humiliating porn. The stuff where it looks like the female actor is actually not enjoying herself at all.
I find that objectionable too, in that I'd prefer not to watch it. But be sensible. If she agreed to it before hand and is getting fairly compensated, there's no reason to ban it. It's a job, and you're not necessarily supposed to enjoy your job. Many men do worse work in worse conditions for less pay than the women you're worried about.
Banning ads for sex tourism should be a no-brainier I would hope.
Not at all. The no-brainer is that sex tourism should be legal and regulated, just like any other industry. Tax them and use that money to enforcefair working conditions. Problem solved.
It is merely trying to remove negative stereotypes from everyday media
Negative according to who? And why do they get to decide what is negative?
It isn't about being puritanical, it is about protecting people from well understood psychological harm.
Exactly what sort of harm are you talking about? How is sending the message that sex is positive and desirable more harmful than sending the message that sex is dirty and should be hidden?
Were the criminal penalties Swartz was facing just? I'm not sure.
What the fuck is wrong with you. There is no ambiguity here. Years in federal prison for downloading something is unjust. There is absolutely no concievable justification for that. How can you not be sure that this was unjust?
I travelled across the country going from music festival to music festival the summer before I went to grad school. You will have plenty of time to do something research related. Just relax and have a great fucking time, you've earned it.
Some things have changed for the better. More has changed for the worse. Ending DADT, and half-assed health insurance reform were good things. But those good things are far outweighed by blatant disrespect for the rule of law.
We already have a huge problem with excessive use of force by police. Until we can rely on police to use a reasonable amount of force, and prosecute those who use excessive force it is completely irresponsible to give them any more weapons.
If an American soldier decides to us military firepower on civilians, should a drone be used to stop him? I think we would agree that of a person shot him, it would be thankful, but use the scary word drone and suddenly it's all terminator.
It's not that there aren't times when a drone would be useful, it's that giving police that power is more dangerous than sticking to old fashioned police work.
Look at what has happened with SWAT teams. There are definitely times when SWAT teams are extremely useful. But every podunk police force thinks it needs a SWAT team, and if they have a SWAT team, they're going to use it whether it's neccessary or not. So you end up with paramilitary police using egregiously excessive force with absolutely no oversight or consequences.
Similarly, once the NYPD and LAPD get their hands on drones, Bumfuck IA is going to want a drone too. And once they get a drone, they're going to use it, whether they have a valid justification for it or not.
Nothing the President has done, and no interpetatiojn the white house presented included killing Americans on American soil.
And nothing Daryl F. Gates ever said included shooting a mayor's dog out of spite, and yet it happened. Any power that can be abused will be abused. Guaranteed.
It only costs $35 to appeal, but it will cost your ISP more than that to go through the appeals process. If everyone appeals, the system will be unworkable, and therefore everyone should appeal.
What competing standards? Skype does not provide end to end encryption, it's no competition for Jitsi. And Jitsi itself is using established standards, ZRTP was created by Philip Zimmerman of PGP fame and is RFC6189.
* Honest looking face, do not avert eye contant and have firm grip
* Dress the same or a bit better than their marks.
* Are happy and unconcerned when doing their work.
* Bathed and groomed.
* Get a bit of charisma.
* Are not dumb.
This is incredibly important for pickpockets
Not just pick pockets. Politicians, lawyers, bankers, salesmen, and insurance agents too. These groups are responsible for the crime that causes the most damage to society. The ghetto thugs and disheveled crazy people are negligible risks compared to these people.
Slashdot Mirror
However, if you want us to pay for it, then we will fight it tooth and nail
What if paying for it costs you less than not paying for it? Would you really rather pay for the costs of raising an unwanted child, and the social problems that damaged adults from unloving homes cause?
You're paying for those unwanted children one way or another. You can choose the cheap way, or the expensive way. Make the smart choice.
All he wants to do is use his property to communicate with others and to do math. Why is that not a legitimate desire?
That's plausible, but I'd like to see someone go through the entire argument. What are the relevant differences in the consequences to each party, and how exactly do their rights and obligations follow from them? Explain to me why a woman can terminate her responsibility unilaterally, but a man cannot.
What else would I do with the hour and a half when I'm done thinking but not yet tired enough to go to sleep? Before the industrial revolution, all that time was filled with chores. But labor saving technology has given me more free time than I have mental energy to be productive with. TV fills this spot nicely.
Forcing people to pay for their negative externalities is a no-brainer, yes.
If this is success, I want none of it. Better to have an agrarian society with a functioning justice system and low levels of poverty than to build an empire at the cost of basic human decency.
You are correct, but in this case it shows one group has more rights than another.
No it doesn't. It shows that different groups doing different things get treated differently. What you want to show is that different groups doing the same thing get treated differently.
Another is that a man has no right to a child until after it is born. The mother does not have to inform the father that she is going to have an abortion. One more place where the right of the male is less than the right of a female. And a male cannot force a woman to have an abortion even if he is the one who has to pay for it for the next 18 years.
I agree that this is unjust. I don't see the connection to separation of church and state though.
Does it? Why can a teacher not take a group of students to see A Charlie Brown Christmas at a church, but can take those same students to see a lecture on evolution at the science museum?
In what way are those two things at all analogous? A christmas story is just that, a story. Evolution is a well supported scientific theory. The first is indoctrination, the second is education. There's nothing about the theory of evolution that implies the presence or absence of any god or gods.
Separation of church and state protects christians just as much as it does atheists. If a biology teacher were to say to his class "Evolution is proof that God does not exist", that would be good cause to sue the teacher and/or the school under the 1st amendment.
I do object to a lot of porn out there. The degrading humiliating porn. The stuff where it looks like the female actor is actually not enjoying herself at all.
I find that objectionable too, in that I'd prefer not to watch it. But be sensible. If she agreed to it before hand and is getting fairly compensated, there's no reason to ban it. It's a job, and you're not necessarily supposed to enjoy your job. Many men do worse work in worse conditions for less pay than the women you're worried about.
The separation of church and state means that atheists and theists have exactly the same rights.
So the puritans were left-wing now?
Banning ads for sex tourism should be a no-brainier I would hope.
Not at all. The no-brainer is that sex tourism should be legal and regulated, just like any other industry. Tax them and use that money to enforcefair working conditions. Problem solved.
It is merely trying to remove negative stereotypes from everyday media
Negative according to who? And why do they get to decide what is negative?
It isn't about being puritanical, it is about protecting people from well understood psychological harm.
Exactly what sort of harm are you talking about? How is sending the message that sex is positive and desirable more harmful than sending the message that sex is dirty and should be hidden?
Were the criminal penalties Swartz was facing just? I'm not sure.
What the fuck is wrong with you. There is no ambiguity here. Years in federal prison for downloading something is unjust. There is absolutely no concievable justification for that. How can you not be sure that this was unjust?
Is there another term for them?
I travelled across the country going from music festival to music festival the summer before I went to grad school. You will have plenty of time to do something research related. Just relax and have a great fucking time, you've earned it.
"Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security,â
-Attorney General Eric Holder
Some things have changed for the better. More has changed for the worse. Ending DADT, and half-assed health insurance reform were good things. But those good things are far outweighed by blatant disrespect for the rule of law.
We already have a huge problem with excessive use of force by police. Until we can rely on police to use a reasonable amount of force, and prosecute those who use excessive force it is completely irresponsible to give them any more weapons.
If an American soldier decides to us military firepower on civilians, should a drone be used to stop him? I think we would agree that of a person shot him, it would be thankful, but use the scary word drone and suddenly it's all terminator.
It's not that there aren't times when a drone would be useful, it's that giving police that power is more dangerous than sticking to old fashioned police work.
Look at what has happened with SWAT teams. There are definitely times when SWAT teams are extremely useful. But every podunk police force thinks it needs a SWAT team, and if they have a SWAT team, they're going to use it whether it's neccessary or not. So you end up with paramilitary police using egregiously excessive force with absolutely no oversight or consequences.
Similarly, once the NYPD and LAPD get their hands on drones, Bumfuck IA is going to want a drone too. And once they get a drone, they're going to use it, whether they have a valid justification for it or not.
Nothing the President has done, and no interpetatiojn the white house presented included killing Americans on American soil.
And nothing Daryl F. Gates ever said included shooting a mayor's dog out of spite, and yet it happened. Any power that can be abused will be abused. Guaranteed.
Almost. Engineers wear ties too sometimes.
is not my friend. But damn if I'm not happy someone is asking these questions and putting up some serious opposition.
There is no cost to file a complaint under six strikes, UNLESS you appeal. Therefore, you must appeal in order to discourage complaints.
It only costs $35 to appeal, but it will cost your ISP more than that to go through the appeals process. If everyone appeals, the system will be unworkable, and therefore everyone should appeal.
What competing standards? Skype does not provide end to end encryption, it's no competition for Jitsi. And Jitsi itself is using established standards, ZRTP was created by Philip Zimmerman of PGP fame and is RFC6189.
Most succesfull criminals generally have:
* Honest looking face, do not avert eye contant and have firm grip
* Dress the same or a bit better than their marks.
* Are happy and unconcerned when doing their work.
* Bathed and groomed.
* Get a bit of charisma.
* Are not dumb.
This is incredibly important for pickpockets
Not just pick pockets. Politicians, lawyers, bankers, salesmen, and insurance agents too. These groups are responsible for the crime that causes the most damage to society. The ghetto thugs and disheveled crazy people are negligible risks compared to these people.