the federal government SHOULD be doing as little as possible.
One thing they should do is stop companies from raping the population hand over fist. A lot of people over there seem to like being charged (or charging) extra for everything because it's the American way, also mumble mumble competition
how can they possibly tell the weather on a thing they only know is there and can barely see. All I can think is models will give you a best guess based on a bunch of assumptions but is it not a bit much to say the weather is this.
Corporations are legal fictions, and the "rights" they have been granted are to shield employees from legal responsibility, which is the opposite of their purpose.
No, the purpose of those "rights" is to shield the STOCKHOLDERS from legal responsibility.
If stockholders were held liable for decisions by management, your 401K/IRA/whatever would be pretty empty, since a fine paid by the corporation would then be passed along to the stockholders....
And why should the stockholders by legally liable, when they make none of the decisions, after all?
Why would stock holders be held to account and not the people who made the decisions to, or did commit the act of whatever crime? If that happens and a company goes bust and a stakeholder loses their investment then, that's how it works. Maybe companies would be less inclined to commit crimes and flout the law if it affected their ability to attract and keep investment in themselves.
...I felt that HIllary would at least be entertaining, in a tawdry, back-room-deal sorta way. Since then it's been fairly apparent that she doesn't really have a clue about foreign policy, and sees positions of power as a goal for its own sake, with no idea what to do with it when she gets there. A Hillary presidency is something we would be talking about for decades to come, and not in a good way.
Calling it now. Hilldog gets elected and in short order works on removing the two term limit thing, becomes US first dictator for life.
Ya, it's funny how when people get in positions of power they give people they know contracts and other positions of power. Too bad this is something that every administration does, so by trying to call out Hillary on it only shows how limited your knowledge is. While it may not seem fair to us, then why haven't we gotten our Senators to write a law limiting that sort of useage of that power?
In other words, this is along standing problem, longer then the last 10 years, longer then 100 years. If you don't like how the system is, then try to change it, but to use it to blame 1 person, when it's all the people who do it is just stupid.
So, you keep asking for examples of Hilldog's corruption and every time it is presented you say, nah, other politicians do that or have done worse so it doesn't count. Personally I can't say anything about corruption but going back to your original post the woman is bat shit crazy. If you guys elect her then the rest of the world will do a huge facepalm. Having said that, your other choice is just as shit, as is only having 2 choices that aren't very different. A second American revolution needs to be cooked up methinks. Either that or just burn your constitution once and for all and embrace the totalitarian police state your leaders long to create.
The email stuff? With the NSA spying into everything, and you know she knew about it before we did, it suddenly looks smart to keep your email server private from the government.
Is yuz supposed to be just? I can only assume so. Y makes a y sounds though. If you want the J use a J and then you're missing the end sound of the word. So you need to spell it juzt which then changes the sound so swop the z to a s and away you go. And what's the point of changing one to won when won is already a different word meaning a different thing? Wun is free I guess but why better than one? Leave it as it is in it's naturally progressed and progressing manor, any changes that need to be made will make themselves.
We could change the spelling of words like "through" and "tough" to "thru" and "tuff".
Fuck that, people just need to learn to spell:P The other good thing about English is even if words are spelt wrong as long as the letters make the right sounds it's decipherable.
No, Im asking why there is a double standard whereby you can "ethically" refuse to patronize a business whose beliefs you disagree with, but they cannot ethically refuse to service you.[...]You're insisting that you have the right to force other people to violate their beliefs to fit your whims.
Then don't start a business offering services or products to the public!
Forcing a pastor to marry someone they convictionally believe is ineligible to marry is about as pure an example of violating religious beliefs as you can find. You are in essence forcing them to create a legal contract between God and them that they think is invalid and sinful to create.
When has it ever happened that a gay couple has tried to force a church to perform a marriage in a sense they (the gays) don't believe in. Gays want to be able to get married to have their love and partnership officially recognised and claim the benefits a married couple would have. Not enter into a legal contract with a god they know supposedly hates them, even though he made them, and people who decide to get around that cognitive dissonance they decide it must be a choice. And since when was god recognised as a legal entity that could enter into a contract?
I know these reply's are a couple days late but still, your thinking is what's wrong with the whole situation in the US and if it was only contained to yourself that would be fine but it's not, the rest of the west looks at you guys and say what the fuck!
Not only that-- would it truly be bigotry if I found out my neighbor was in an adulterous relationship, or abused his children, or was opposed to adoption services for orphans, and because of those flaws I refused to serve him in my business out of principle? Many christians would say that being in a homosexual relationship is analogous to adultery or fornication, but dare to refuse to serve THEM over such a principle and its bigotry. What?
People need to understand that there is a difference between bigotry and disapproving of an ethos or behavior. This isnt about finding a class of person and saying "i hate them", its about saying "I dont support that lifestyle". You dont like it? Fine, dont go to those businesses-- just be aware you're doing literally the same thing that Indiana businesses are arguing for by boycotting a lifestyle or ethos.
You sounded fairly reasonable until this point. The fact you casually acquaint child abuse with cheating on your wife or being opposed to adoption of orphans (how did you come up with these examples?) But if you are going to operate a business and then refuse to serve people based on YOUR opinions of THEIR lifestyle then, I don't know if it aligns with what's traditionally called bigotry but it's certainly bang out of order. What happened to turn the other cheek. Judge not lest ye be judged and all the actual good stuff big J said that inspires people to get along and be happy, instead of, this old book I have and believe says that is wrong therefor you are wrong and I shall have nothing to do with you. If you were to say that as an individual then fair play, you're free to be as big a dick as you want, but from a business stand point in a so called free market then no you can't refuse service just because you don't like something about the person who wants to buy. And it's not the same as a customer boycotting. The business/customer relationship is not one of equal measures.
When my job requires me to interview senior level developers and architects the fastest way to get your resume shit canned is start spouting religious devotion to any particular technology even of that technology is a requirement for the position. It shows a remarkable lack of the flexibility needed to be a good developer.
Is that your job interviewing for senior level developers for the next version of windows? If 11 is being talked about 12 must already be being planned, right? Also just as a heads up, when you interview you represent the company. A good way for me (or anyone) to tell a company to go fuck themselves is to put a sanctimonious prick to interview who think he's all the shit because he's asking the question and has the power. No better way to show mismanagement by displaying your biggest twats proudly. What company is that though, just so anyone who doesn't think windows 8 was anything less than shit will apply.
The first section of the summary states that actors have trouble finding other roles after staring in the Star Wars franchise but then concludes with an agent saying actors should accept the low-paying Star Wars roles because it "...guarantees a huge global audience, enhancing an actor's marketability."
Well, an agent said it so it must be true.
Re:More opportunities for amateur observation.
on
X-37B To Fly Again
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Makes you wonder though, what we don't actually know about. Something tells me that the Air force has assets in space that are not being tracked by anybody. Surely they have worked on stealth for satellites and have delivery systems that can throw stuff up there without much public notice.
Even with eyes on this thing who's going to notice when it opens it's door a bit and a few cubesats float out. I'm thinking they already have their stealth delivery system at least.
Jesus, the guy who would always do what you would do.
Despite an oppressive Roman occupation, Jesus never had much to say about the Romans. He outmaneuvered questions designed to embroil him in the local politics. He refused efforts to crown him as king. He refused to defend himself when he stood accused before them.
If I may be so bold as to guess, I would say no, Jesus would not vocally oppose this bill. Nor would he endorse it. Jesus did not see government as a means to achieve his objectives. He taught in the synagogues. He clashed with religious leaders. He went to the oppressed and ministered to them directly. He would not be interested in your politics (or mine). But he would be strongly interested in affecting the compassion, selflessness, humility, and general godliness of the people involved.
Jesus would do none of things because he is and always will be a personification of the Sun. He was not a person that existed and had done anything or held any opinions.
Why aptly named? The Spartans had nothing to do with the Trojan horse mythology, that was the Trojans and the Greeks.
Spartans are (not was, because they still exist) Greeks, and the mythological -as in Homer's literature for example- cause of the Trojan War was the queen of Sparta, Helen, that was "abducted" by Trojans, so Greeks (Spartans and other) went to save her - the "Trojan Horse" was built by Greeks (so Spartans also - it was about their queen!).
That's all moot because this is named after Halo Spartans.
Slashdot Mirror
the federal government SHOULD be doing as little as possible.
One thing they should do is stop companies from raping the population hand over fist. A lot of people over there seem to like being charged (or charging) extra for everything because it's the American way, also mumble mumble competition
You do know that, if elected, Mickey would make us all slaves right? Write in Ralph Nader if you want to make a point. At least he used to run.
Write in Cthulhu. Why settle for the lesser of two evils?
how can they possibly tell the weather on a thing they only know is there and can barely see. All I can think is models will give you a best guess based on a bunch of assumptions but is it not a bit much to say the weather is this.
One of our many Constitutional Amendments already has a solution for that possibility.
Maybe, but the us gov doesn't seem to give a shit what it says. More guidelines than rules.
No, the purpose of those "rights" is to shield the STOCKHOLDERS from legal responsibility.
If stockholders were held liable for decisions by management, your 401K/IRA/whatever would be pretty empty, since a fine paid by the corporation would then be passed along to the stockholders....
And why should the stockholders by legally liable, when they make none of the decisions, after all?
Why would stock holders be held to account and not the people who made the decisions to, or did commit the act of whatever crime? If that happens and a company goes bust and a stakeholder loses their investment then, that's how it works. Maybe companies would be less inclined to commit crimes and flout the law if it affected their ability to attract and keep investment in themselves.
...I felt that HIllary would at least be entertaining, in a tawdry, back-room-deal sorta way. Since then it's been fairly apparent that she doesn't really have a clue about foreign policy, and sees positions of power as a goal for its own sake, with no idea what to do with it when she gets there. A Hillary presidency is something we would be talking about for decades to come, and not in a good way.
Calling it now. Hilldog gets elected and in short order works on removing the two term limit thing, becomes US first dictator for life.
Ya, it's funny how when people get in positions of power they give people they know contracts and other positions of power. Too bad this is something that every administration does, so by trying to call out Hillary on it only shows how limited your knowledge is. While it may not seem fair to us, then why haven't we gotten our Senators to write a law limiting that sort of useage of that power?
In other words, this is along standing problem, longer then the last 10 years, longer then 100 years. If you don't like how the system is, then try to change it, but to use it to blame 1 person, when it's all the people who do it is just stupid.
So, you keep asking for examples of Hilldog's corruption and every time it is presented you say, nah, other politicians do that or have done worse so it doesn't count. Personally I can't say anything about corruption but going back to your original post the woman is bat shit crazy. If you guys elect her then the rest of the world will do a huge facepalm. Having said that, your other choice is just as shit, as is only having 2 choices that aren't very different. A second American revolution needs to be cooked up methinks. Either that or just burn your constitution once and for all and embrace the totalitarian police state your leaders long to create.
The email stuff? With the NSA spying into everything, and you know she knew about it before we did, it suddenly looks smart to keep your email server private from the government.
Unless you are government.
I'll take the Daily Harassment of Women In the Game Industry for $500 please.
Are we going to call it English++ or English# ?
English doublegood
(wi yuz tu karakters wen won wil du?)
Is yuz supposed to be just? I can only assume so. Y makes a y sounds though. If you want the J use a J and then you're missing the end sound of the word. So you need to spell it juzt which then changes the sound so swop the z to a s and away you go. And what's the point of changing one to won when won is already a different word meaning a different thing? Wun is free I guess but why better than one? Leave it as it is in it's naturally progressed and progressing manor, any changes that need to be made will make themselves.
We could change the spelling of words like "through" and "tough" to "thru" and "tuff".
Fuck that, people just need to learn to spell :P The other good thing about English is even if words are spelt wrong as long as the letters make the right sounds it's decipherable.
No, Im asking why there is a double standard whereby you can "ethically" refuse to patronize a business whose beliefs you disagree with, but they cannot ethically refuse to service you.[...]You're insisting that you have the right to force other people to violate their beliefs to fit your whims.
Then don't start a business offering services or products to the public!
Forcing a pastor to marry someone they convictionally believe is ineligible to marry is about as pure an example of violating religious beliefs as you can find. You are in essence forcing them to create a legal contract between God and them that they think is invalid and sinful to create.
When has it ever happened that a gay couple has tried to force a church to perform a marriage in a sense they (the gays) don't believe in. Gays want to be able to get married to have their love and partnership officially recognised and claim the benefits a married couple would have. Not enter into a legal contract with a god they know supposedly hates them, even though he made them, and people who decide to get around that cognitive dissonance they decide it must be a choice. And since when was god recognised as a legal entity that could enter into a contract?
I know these reply's are a couple days late but still, your thinking is what's wrong with the whole situation in the US and if it was only contained to yourself that would be fine but it's not, the rest of the west looks at you guys and say what the fuck!
Not only that-- would it truly be bigotry if I found out my neighbor was in an adulterous relationship, or abused his children, or was opposed to adoption services for orphans, and because of those flaws I refused to serve him in my business out of principle? Many christians would say that being in a homosexual relationship is analogous to adultery or fornication, but dare to refuse to serve THEM over such a principle and its bigotry. What?
People need to understand that there is a difference between bigotry and disapproving of an ethos or behavior. This isnt about finding a class of person and saying "i hate them", its about saying "I dont support that lifestyle". You dont like it? Fine, dont go to those businesses-- just be aware you're doing literally the same thing that Indiana businesses are arguing for by boycotting a lifestyle or ethos.
You sounded fairly reasonable until this point. The fact you casually acquaint child abuse with cheating on your wife or being opposed to adoption of orphans (how did you come up with these examples?) But if you are going to operate a business and then refuse to serve people based on YOUR opinions of THEIR lifestyle then, I don't know if it aligns with what's traditionally called bigotry but it's certainly bang out of order. What happened to turn the other cheek. Judge not lest ye be judged and all the actual good stuff big J said that inspires people to get along and be happy, instead of, this old book I have and believe says that is wrong therefor you are wrong and I shall have nothing to do with you. If you were to say that as an individual then fair play, you're free to be as big a dick as you want, but from a business stand point in a so called free market then no you can't refuse service just because you don't like something about the person who wants to buy. And it's not the same as a customer boycotting. The business/customer relationship is not one of equal measures.
When my job requires me to interview senior level developers and architects the fastest way to get your resume shit canned is start spouting religious devotion to any particular technology even of that technology is a requirement for the position. It shows a remarkable lack of the flexibility needed to be a good developer.
Is that your job interviewing for senior level developers for the next version of windows? If 11 is being talked about 12 must already be being planned, right? Also just as a heads up, when you interview you represent the company. A good way for me (or anyone) to tell a company to go fuck themselves is to put a sanctimonious prick to interview who think he's all the shit because he's asking the question and has the power. No better way to show mismanagement by displaying your biggest twats proudly. What company is that though, just so anyone who doesn't think windows 8 was anything less than shit will apply.
... will they be given guns, or batons at least?
Of course they will. They'd also get spare military equipment (if there was any). These file sharers are hard core crims don'tchaknow.
The first section of the summary states that actors have trouble finding other roles after staring in the Star Wars franchise but then concludes with an agent saying actors should accept the low-paying Star Wars roles because it "...guarantees a huge global audience, enhancing an actor's marketability."
Well, an agent said it so it must be true.
Makes you wonder though, what we don't actually know about. Something tells me that the Air force has assets in space that are not being tracked by anybody. Surely they have worked on stealth for satellites and have delivery systems that can throw stuff up there without much public notice.
Even with eyes on this thing who's going to notice when it opens it's door a bit and a few cubesats float out. I'm thinking they already have their stealth delivery system at least.
Jesus, the guy who would always do what you would do.
Despite an oppressive Roman occupation, Jesus never had much to say about the Romans. He outmaneuvered questions designed to embroil him in the local politics. He refused efforts to crown him as king. He refused to defend himself when he stood accused before them.
If I may be so bold as to guess, I would say no, Jesus would not vocally oppose this bill. Nor would he endorse it. Jesus did not see government as a means to achieve his objectives. He taught in the synagogues. He clashed with religious leaders. He went to the oppressed and ministered to them directly. He would not be interested in your politics (or mine). But he would be strongly interested in affecting the compassion, selflessness, humility, and general godliness of the people involved.
Jesus would do none of things because he is and always will be a personification of the Sun. He was not a person that existed and had done anything or held any opinions.
Why aptly named? The Spartans had nothing to do with the Trojan horse mythology, that was the Trojans and the Greeks.
Spartans are (not was, because they still exist) Greeks, and the mythological -as in Homer's literature for example- cause of the Trojan War was the queen of Sparta, Helen, that was "abducted" by Trojans, so Greeks (Spartans and other) went to save her - the "Trojan Horse" was built by Greeks (so Spartans also - it was about their queen!).
That's all moot because this is named after Halo Spartans.
Someone (I think on reddit) pointed out that using the code name Spartan fits the "Halo" theme they've started with the "Cortana" search assistant.
You needed someone on reddit to point that out?
Approximately every other version of windows is shit. XP (good), Vista (shit), Win7 (good), Win8 (shit).
Windows 10? No thanks, I'll wait for Windows 9, the good version they skipped.
There will never be a 9. They are trying to distance themselves from the shitfest that was 8 so it got skipped.
I'm confused as to why you sign your posts yet post as AC.
I'm not calling women mobsters, I'm leveling the pronoun usage playing field, while working hard to avoid any accusations of sexism.
Well then you shouldn't have picked a sex and just gone with they.