Children have almost no rights. Can't vote, can't drink, can't drive, can't be party to most contracts.
Children have the same Constitutional rights as adults. Drinking, driving, and signing contracts are privileges, not Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Voting is the only exception, and it's only a right to persons above the age of 18 (per the Constitution).
Back years ago, women and children had rights only from the man of the family.
It's not "years ago" any more. That thought process doesn't apply here.
If that were true were are all the combatants on both sides coming from?
Fringe lunatics and government lapdogs.
Personally, I'm of the mentality that crazy fringe loonies are an extreme minority - they just get a lot of attention because they're loud, obnoxious, and thus, impossible to ignore.
Clearly at least some of the population supports these activities.
Well, sure, some do - some folks here in the US of A support the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church, but neither they nor their supporters represent Americans as a whole.
My philosophy has always been, "Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke."
Could you imagine what the art world would look like today, if all (or any) of history's greatest artists had tempered their work based on what other people might think?
A board game named 'Memory' is a specific piece of IP.
Which means, no one but the group that owns the rights to the IP of aforementioned board game is allowed, legally, to create a memory based board game and name it 'Memory.'
It does not mean that group owns all instances of the word memory.
It does not mean that group owns all instances of memory based board games.
This is simple, basic stuff.
WTF, Apple Legal? You're good enough at what you do to get a judgement against one of your competitors/suppliers for using goddamn rounded corners, but not good enough to point out something that's obvious to most 4th graders?
I know most people don't care because they don't feel they're doing anything wrong, but for people like me, this is just another show of how over-reaching the government is becoming.
Everyone is innocent, until a government decides otherwise.
The UCMJ is not a book of laws, it's a list of regulations. Breaking them is not criminal action.
Violating the 'regulations' listed in the UCMJ can and often do result in some form of punishment, up to and including denial of freedom (AKA imprisonment).
I'd have to double check, but I think according to the timeline the affair started after he quit the Army.
TL;DR.
I'm sure I'll hear more about it on NPR tomorrow morning, whether I want to or not.
Anyway, why is it illegal for a member of the Army to have an affair?
Dunno, you'd have to ask someone who's an expert on the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Mistyped as "USMJ" in my previous post).
Something being illegal doesn't make it unethical in my book either.
Completely agree with you there; "legal" != "right," just as "illegal" != "wrong." With so many things, right and wrong are often a matter of subjective interpretation.
Of course, if my wife is reading this, what he did was wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong!
It is indeed sad when children are harmed. Both sides in this conflict seem to busy blaming each other to make progress though.
I am blaming all of them.
Funny thing is, when you talk to actual Israeli's and Palestinians, neither group wants to blame the other, or cause the other harm - they all just want to be able to co-exist peacefully.
Seems men of power are the only ones who insist on bloodshed. Funny, that...
Anyone suspected of possibly presenting some kind of unknown, unnamed threat, that may or may not challenge the status quo, or even exist for that matter, is fair game apparently.
FTFY.
Brave new world, Freedom == Slavery, all that jazz.
For example, some dead people won in the most recent US elections, and Marion Barry continues to be reelected despite being a putz and a crackhead.
Isn't democracy wonderful? Even idiots get to vote.
Voting for a dead guy doesn't make a person an idiot; it just means they'd rather be led by a corpse than the still-living alternative.
If I were running for office, I think losing to a dead guy would be the second worst thing that could happen, next to being beaten by Hitler as a write-in candidate.
What do ethics have to do with this case? The guy was the director of the CIA. His marriage vows aren't relevant. I don't care about his marital status or how many women he sleeps with who aren't his wife.
If any of it happened while he was still employed by the Army, then he very much did break some laws, per USMJ Article 134, paragraph 62
Not to mention, considering the amount of authority these guys have (Patraeus and Allen), I'm sure there are a few 'classified access' questions the FBI will have for them as well.
I'm not a Christian but I was raised one, so I know when the bible is being misquoted. I'll just take the third quote as one example.
You'll take the third quote because it's the only one that's iffy. Doesn't change the fact that the Christian bible doesn't have a whole lot of nice things to say about Jews, which was quite obviously the point I was making.
Now try and put this hadith in context for me: ""The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews , when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim)"
Yea, I see that one quoted by bigots a lot.
Sure, there are parts of the Qu'ran that say Muslims should do bad things to other groups... just like there are parts in the Torah telling Jews to cheat and deceive non-believers, and parts in the Christian bible telling men it's OK to rape their own teenage daughters. The difference is, you don't seem to believe that all Jews and all Christians follow such nonsense written in their holiest of books, but do seem to adhere to the belief that all Muslims march in lock-step with the fundies, and that there is no such thing as individual interpretation of their dogma. Contrary to what you've convinced yourself, most Muslims are just normal folks trying to get by day-by-day, and have no time or patience for such silliness as racism. Don't take my word for it, meet some and talk to them.
Here's a quote from the same Wikipedia page you pulled the hadith from:
According to Bernard Lewis, there is nothing in Muslim theology (with a single exception) that can be considered refutations of Judaism or ferocious anti-Jewish diatribes. Lewis and Chanes suggest that, for a variety of reasons, Muslims were not antisemitic for the most part. The Quran, like Judaism, orders Muslims to profess strict monotheism. It also rejects the stories of Jewish deicide as a blasphemous absurdity, and other similar stories in the Gospels play no part in the Muslim educational system The Quran does not present itself as a fulfillment of the Hebrew Bible but rather a restoration of its original message – thus, no clash of interpretations between Judaism and Islam can arise.
I recommend you try reading the whole thing, instead of cherry-picking the particulars that support your bigotted pre-dispositions.
Slashdot Mirror
Children have almost no rights. Can't vote, can't drink, can't drive, can't be party to most contracts.
Children have the same Constitutional rights as adults. Drinking, driving, and signing contracts are privileges, not Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Voting is the only exception, and it's only a right to persons above the age of 18 (per the Constitution).
Back years ago, women and children had rights only from the man of the family.
It's not "years ago" any more. That thought process doesn't apply here.
Even though this only works on Macs it is still the best software for the job.
Only if the guy has a Mac.
Otherwise, it's as useless as tits on a boar.
"Read in the bathtub without worry of losing more than about $12 and the time Amazon takes to ship? Check"
Only if you buy cheap paperbacks. I buy leather bound signed 1st editions. A couple of my books are worth more than a 64gig new ipad.
I buy books to read.
Cheap paperbacks work just fine for that purpose.
Why wouldn't speech that is produced by a child be speech from its parents?
Really? You've gotta be trollin' me...
Maybe because children and parents are individual entities both endowed with their own, separate rights by the Constitution.
Conversely, a software program is a piece of work, created by a human, that has no rights.
As far as strawmen go, the one you built here is about as piss-poor as they can get.
Imagine blocking all traffic lights so nobody can see if they are red and green, and see what happens to the traffic.
Actually if I were a bad guy I would turn all lights green instead of disabling them... there'd be a crash at every intersection!
Where I live, just turning the lights off (or switching to flashing red) works just the same.
Happens every time a storm rolls through. I'd find it funny if I didn't have to share the road with idiots.
If that were true were are all the combatants on both sides coming from?
Fringe lunatics and government lapdogs.
Personally, I'm of the mentality that crazy fringe loonies are an extreme minority - they just get a lot of attention because they're loud, obnoxious, and thus, impossible to ignore.
Clearly at least some of the population supports these activities.
Well, sure, some do - some folks here in the US of A support the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church, but neither they nor their supporters represent Americans as a whole.
that's hilariously fucking clever.
Some people disagreed when I showed them the story for what is now called Concentration Room.
My philosophy has always been, "Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke."
Could you imagine what the art world would look like today, if all (or any) of history's greatest artists had tempered their work based on what other people might think?
A board game named 'Memory' is a specific piece of IP.
Which means, no one but the group that owns the rights to the IP of aforementioned board game is allowed, legally, to create a memory based board game and name it 'Memory.'
It does not mean that group owns all instances of the word memory.
It does not mean that group owns all instances of memory based board games.
This is simple, basic stuff.
WTF, Apple Legal? You're good enough at what you do to get a judgement against one of your competitors/suppliers for using goddamn rounded corners, but not good enough to point out something that's obvious to most 4th graders?
Or instead of calling it "Memory", call it "Concentration Camp".
I'm sure you already realize this, but that's hilariously fucking clever.
+5 Internets to you.
You are supposed to warn people about spoilers.
My bad.
**SPOILER ALERT** - Juliet didn't actually poison herself.
You don't expect a discount on your cell phone service or refunded minutes if you have a dropped call.
I also expect them to not charge me for 20-30% of conversations I didn't get to have because they dropped my call.
If you're innocent you have nothing to fear.
But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.
I know most people don't care because they don't feel they're doing anything wrong, but for people like me, this is just another show of how over-reaching the government is becoming.
Everyone is innocent, until a government decides otherwise.
The UCMJ is not a book of laws, it's a list of regulations. Breaking them is not criminal action.
Violating the 'regulations' listed in the UCMJ can and often do result in some form of punishment, up to and including denial of freedom (AKA imprisonment).
Sounds like law to me.
I'd have to double check, but I think according to the timeline the affair started after he quit the Army.
TL;DR.
I'm sure I'll hear more about it on NPR tomorrow morning, whether I want to or not.
Anyway, why is it illegal for a member of the Army to have an affair?
Dunno, you'd have to ask someone who's an expert on the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Mistyped as "USMJ" in my previous post).
Something being illegal doesn't make it unethical in my book either.
Completely agree with you there; "legal" != "right," just as "illegal" != "wrong." With so many things, right and wrong are often a matter of subjective interpretation.
Of course, if my wife is reading this, what he did was wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong!
Love ya, honey!
It is indeed sad when children are harmed. Both sides in this conflict seem to busy blaming each other to make progress though.
I am blaming all of them.
Funny thing is, when you talk to actual Israeli's and Palestinians, neither group wants to blame the other, or cause the other harm - they all just want to be able to co-exist peacefully.
Seems men of power are the only ones who insist on bloodshed. Funny, that...
Cops have the job to protect the public.
Not according to the SCOTUS.
BTW, that is a 7 year old decision, there is absolutely zero excuse for such ignorance at this point. For shame.
Very carefully.
Don't you mean PGP, as in Pretty Good Privacy? Otherwise, let me know what GPG is...
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=gpg
Anyone suspected of possibly presenting some kind of unknown, unnamed threat, that may or may not challenge the status quo, or even exist for that matter, is fair game apparently.
FTFY.
Brave new world, Freedom == Slavery, all that jazz.
For example, some dead people won in the most recent US elections, and Marion Barry continues to be reelected despite being a putz and a crackhead.
Isn't democracy wonderful? Even idiots get to vote.
Voting for a dead guy doesn't make a person an idiot; it just means they'd rather be led by a corpse than the still-living alternative.
If I were running for office, I think losing to a dead guy would be the second worst thing that could happen, next to being beaten by Hitler as a write-in candidate.
What do ethics have to do with this case? The guy was the director of the CIA. His marriage vows aren't relevant. I don't care about his marital status or how many women he sleeps with who aren't his wife.
If any of it happened while he was still employed by the Army, then he very much did break some laws, per USMJ Article 134, paragraph 62
Not to mention, considering the amount of authority these guys have (Patraeus and Allen), I'm sure there are a few 'classified access' questions the FBI will have for them as well.
Holy fuck, what is the matter with these people?
You mean, besides the obvious?
Defensive much?
No, I was hoping for a straight answer, but apparently that's asking too much these days...
I'm not a Christian but I was raised one, so I know when the bible is being misquoted. I'll just take the third quote as one example.
You'll take the third quote because it's the only one that's iffy. Doesn't change the fact that the Christian bible doesn't have a whole lot of nice things to say about Jews, which was quite obviously the point I was making.
Now try and put this hadith in context for me: ""The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews , when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim)"
Yea, I see that one quoted by bigots a lot.
Sure, there are parts of the Qu'ran that say Muslims should do bad things to other groups... just like there are parts in the Torah telling Jews to cheat and deceive non-believers, and parts in the Christian bible telling men it's OK to rape their own teenage daughters. The difference is, you don't seem to believe that all Jews and all Christians follow such nonsense written in their holiest of books, but do seem to adhere to the belief that all Muslims march in lock-step with the fundies, and that there is no such thing as individual interpretation of their dogma. Contrary to what you've convinced yourself, most Muslims are just normal folks trying to get by day-by-day, and have no time or patience for such silliness as racism. Don't take my word for it, meet some and talk to them.
Here's a quote from the same Wikipedia page you pulled the hadith from:
According to Bernard Lewis, there is nothing in Muslim theology (with a single exception) that can be considered refutations of Judaism or ferocious anti-Jewish diatribes. Lewis and Chanes suggest that, for a variety of reasons, Muslims were not antisemitic for the most part. The Quran, like Judaism, orders Muslims to profess strict monotheism. It also rejects the stories of Jewish deicide as a blasphemous absurdity, and other similar stories in the Gospels play no part in the Muslim educational system The Quran does not present itself as a fulfillment of the Hebrew Bible but rather a restoration of its original message – thus, no clash of interpretations between Judaism and Islam can arise.
I recommend you try reading the whole thing, instead of cherry-picking the particulars that support your bigotted pre-dispositions.