You are correct. But although he is definitely a religious fanatic, he's not a Christian fanatic, because he's Mormon. Christians are monotheists, but Mormons are polytheistic. It's strange to me that some Christians still agree to quorum with Mormons.
Dumb phones are more popular than smart phones because dumb phones are better. They are better in general, and they are certainly a much better deal in terms of price. It seems obvious to me. I'll buy a smart phone as soon as one is worth the cost. So far, none have been worth it.
And by saying they are overpaid, you mean that there are many more people clamoring to become teachers, than there are teachers needed? That is the one and only way to judge how "overpaid" a person is. For instance, the evidence suggests that the President and all Fortune 500 CEOs are overpaid, but I've only heard of teachers being paid "enough", never "overpaid", although I am open to the possibility, if you can demonstrate it.
So, what's the difference between "risk of government censorship" (which you say she is free of) and "consequences of their speech" (which you say she must bear)?
This is an honest question. How do we differentiate acceptable retribution and unacceptable retribution?
Wrong. Corporations pay taxes (on profits). I know, it's a cute (and completely false) thing to claim that corporate taxes are passed on to customers, and therefore consumers actually pay the corporation taxes. That is nonsense circumloqution, though: we could just as easily say that my employer pays my income tax, or that all taxes are paid by miners, lumberjacks, and others who take resources directly out of the ground. All of those arguments would be nonsense.
If corporate taxes were zero, then other taxes would increase in proportion -- a zero net gain. We insert taxes into the economy in places where we think they will do the least economic damage. Corporate profits are one place; personal income is another; tariffs are a third.
It is perfectly fine and reasonable to suggest that corporate profits are a bad place to insert a tax into the economy. Fine; I'm willing to hear that out. It is not, however, to wave hands and make up false equivalence between one thing (corporate taxes) and another (personal taxes); I'm not willing to hear that out.
If this were true, then the market theories underlying libertariansim would be valid. But it's not true; this kind of corporate behavior does piss off consumers, but does not alter customer behavior on any large scale.
Agreed. In fact, this battle was lost before it began. The world had settled on the word "hacker" before the word "cracker" was invented. Plus, "cracker" is a racial slur. There's even a damn movie called "Hackers". It's long since time to let it go.
Economic growth is population control. He also invests in that. In the meantime, children are fucking dying. Only a sociopath would imply that they don't matter.
I disagree. I charge that the vaccine naysayers, along with naysayers of many other things that are true, are absolutely using the word "proof" in the mathematical sense. Their brains find that the only way to avoid cognitive dissonance is to use the only tool of logic which can allow their absurd beliefs to continue: that it is, in fact, impossible to "prove" that the belief is wrong.
Billions of children have taken vaccines. We have great statistics on the positive and negative effects of vaccines. The vast overwhelming majority of people benefit; a sad rare few are harmed. In the difficult calculus of medicine, we judge them to be worth it, and we even set up (in the USA) a formal system to provide for those rare sad few cases.
The problem is when people say that we need to prove they are safe, which is a nonsense thing to say because it preposterously presumes that we haven't already done that. And you recognize that, which is great. I claim that people who don't recognize that, can never be convinced, because they are obviously not able to be convinced by evidence, because the evidence is long since 'in'.
Lacy said this is the first time he has referred a case to the professional licensing board.
Right, so before this, Mr Lacy has always said "The petition is rejected because the petitioner doesn't know what he's talking about." Now Mr Lacy is trying a new way to reject a claim: "The petition is rejected because the petitioner does know what he's talking about."
Wow. With logic like that, Mr Lacy must have an easy job.
My eyes had to rescan the headline several times trying to make grammatical sense of the construction until I realized there was a missing hyphen between the first two words. At first I thought there was a preposition missing between the second and third words. Bad grammar makes reading more difficult. In the 12 years that I've been reading Slashdot, the stories have always had bad grammar, and that has never been excusable. This isn't some rinkydink site, it's a major internet destination. Its grammar should be better than it is.
If I were him, I might have gone down to the local soup kitchen and told a couple homeless people about it, and given them each a few tickets to demonstrate it. That community could have benefited for a few weeks or months before the lotto figured it out.
Well usually there would be third parties to the transaction. Yeah, great, the coal plant and the pond owner both want to dump toxic sludge into the pond. Well the people who live downstream don't want that.
I can't think of a law which *nobody* supports, which is your scenario. There's a lot of criticism of the Obamacare "individual mandate" (which isn't a mandate at all, but I digress): but while one individual may not want to buy insurance, the rest of society wants him to, because they are the ones who have to care for him when he has an accident.
Another would be, say, drug use. Yeah, great, both the dealer and the junkie want to make the transaction, but that's not the whole story. The rest of society claims to have a stake in the transaction because they are the ones who have to deal with the externalities of the transaction.
It's okay, we can disagree with this. I accept that the government necessarily and tautologically "tells its subjects what is best". When I disagree and think I know better, then I try to convince others, and in a functional constitutional democracy, eventually we should get our way. And when I don't get my way, I don't blame it on ideological failures in the law.
If a criminal commits a crime, let's say theft, then I'd say it is reasonable to assert that the criminal "thinks it is best" that he steal the thing. Thus, the law is "them" (the government) telling the criminal that "they" know what is best.
Do you disagree with that? This is interesting to me because I've often spoken with certain kinds of thinkers who cannot wrap their mind around my assertion that of course the government tells you "what they think is best". It's sort of the entire point of the law, from my perspective. And yet, I haven't completely given up on the possibility that I'm really missing something, some really good point that underlies the notions held by those thinkers, which could turn around my opinion on the matter. Can you convince me? Or try?
To me more clear, "laws based on protecting individual rights" are great because I believe in individual rights -- most likely, the same individual rights you believe in. But, still, that's you and me saying that we know better than others which rights are held by individuals. I never make arguments which say "Oh, that law is stupid or invalid because it is just the government telling me how to live my life", because ALL laws (in my understanding of the law) do that, and I'm not willing to discard with the entire notion of law.
The Bible names several tools which scholars cannot identify. I'm not a Biblical scholar so I can't name them from memory, but there were units of measure and other weird tools for which the Bible gives the name but no description, and none survive today.
This forum is so completely chock full of great examples of tools no longer in use that the premise of the article is preposterously stupid.
On the Messages Prefs page (messages.pl?op=display_prefs), in Safari I have a gray box with my user info and a second gray box showing that I have moderator points, both above "This is you!"; and that is above the Message Preferences box. In FireFox, however, those two gray boxes also are shown below the Message Preferences, whereas in Safari they are only shown above. It looks like there is slightly different html being sent to each browser.
When I go to my Messages (messages.pl?op=list), it shows my messages like before, but the links to individual messages are broken. I click the link, and I'm not looking at my comment, or I'm not looking at the reply to my comment. I'm looking at some other comment in the same discussion.
The redesign, though, is fine. I agree that there's a bit too much space between everything, but the whole look is nice.
When you upload to Facebook, you are stating that you DO have those rights taken care of. Thus, if your friend takes your picture and uploads it, they are claiming to have your permission; if Facebook uses that photo, they have an agreement with the provider (your friend) in good faith. It is your friend who did something wrong, and your friend whom you should sue for damages.
And THAT my friends is why intellectual property, and Facebook, are both absurd and terrible.
I assert that there is no law anywhere in America requiring you to show the police an ID when peacefully sitting in a coffee shop. This has been my understanding since civics class in high school, confirmed by speeches from ACLU lawyers, and bolstered by pretty much everything I've ever learned about American law. If you want to assert that I am wrong, and that a police officer can contact you for no reason, demand and ID, and put you in jail when you politely decline -- well, that assertion is so preposterous that I'm willing to dismiss it without looking it up for myself, because I have already looked it up for myself many times during my life. Thus, cite or you're full of it.
If you're talking about an HR department, then you're talking about a job, and if you're talking about a job then you're the kind of person who benefits from a degree. The kind of person who doesn't need a degree, is the kind of person who owns the HR department.
Yes, the most extremely exceptional people succeed without needing credentials of any kind. A highly driven genius doesn't need to prove he's a driven genius to a college professor before attaining success (though it often helps).
For people who aren't that one-in-ten-million person, college is a good bet. I personally have benefited substantially from doing a four-year stint in college. It's helps mediocre joes like me.
Denigrating those 999,999/1,000,000 people as drones shows you are either looking down on us from a position as that 1/1,000,000 people, or looking up at us jealously as one of the people who couldn't get through college himself. Considering you have time to waste on Slashdot, I have my own guess as to which it is.
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct. But although he is definitely a religious fanatic, he's not a Christian fanatic, because he's Mormon. Christians are monotheists, but Mormons are polytheistic. It's strange to me that some Christians still agree to quorum with Mormons.
Dumb phones are more popular than smart phones because dumb phones are better. They are better in general, and they are certainly a much better deal in terms of price. It seems obvious to me. I'll buy a smart phone as soon as one is worth the cost. So far, none have been worth it.
And by saying they are overpaid, you mean that there are many more people clamoring to become teachers, than there are teachers needed? That is the one and only way to judge how "overpaid" a person is. For instance, the evidence suggests that the President and all Fortune 500 CEOs are overpaid, but I've only heard of teachers being paid "enough", never "overpaid", although I am open to the possibility, if you can demonstrate it.
So, what's the difference between "risk of government censorship" (which you say she is free of) and "consequences of their speech" (which you say she must bear)?
This is an honest question. How do we differentiate acceptable retribution and unacceptable retribution?
Wrong. Corporations pay taxes (on profits). I know, it's a cute (and completely false) thing to claim that corporate taxes are passed on to customers, and therefore consumers actually pay the corporation taxes. That is nonsense circumloqution, though: we could just as easily say that my employer pays my income tax, or that all taxes are paid by miners, lumberjacks, and others who take resources directly out of the ground. All of those arguments would be nonsense.
If corporate taxes were zero, then other taxes would increase in proportion -- a zero net gain. We insert taxes into the economy in places where we think they will do the least economic damage. Corporate profits are one place; personal income is another; tariffs are a third.
It is perfectly fine and reasonable to suggest that corporate profits are a bad place to insert a tax into the economy. Fine; I'm willing to hear that out. It is not, however, to wave hands and make up false equivalence between one thing (corporate taxes) and another (personal taxes); I'm not willing to hear that out.
If this were true, then the market theories underlying libertariansim would be valid. But it's not true; this kind of corporate behavior does piss off consumers, but does not alter customer behavior on any large scale.
Awesome, I still wear mine. Every time I wear it, people ask me what the heck DVD CCA is, and I give them the brief version.
Agreed. In fact, this battle was lost before it began. The world had settled on the word "hacker" before the word "cracker" was invented. Plus, "cracker" is a racial slur. There's even a damn movie called "Hackers". It's long since time to let it go.
Economic growth is population control. He also invests in that. In the meantime, children are fucking dying. Only a sociopath would imply that they don't matter.
I disagree. I charge that the vaccine naysayers, along with naysayers of many other things that are true, are absolutely using the word "proof" in the mathematical sense. Their brains find that the only way to avoid cognitive dissonance is to use the only tool of logic which can allow their absurd beliefs to continue: that it is, in fact, impossible to "prove" that the belief is wrong.
Billions of children have taken vaccines. We have great statistics on the positive and negative effects of vaccines. The vast overwhelming majority of people benefit; a sad rare few are harmed. In the difficult calculus of medicine, we judge them to be worth it, and we even set up (in the USA) a formal system to provide for those rare sad few cases.
The problem is when people say that we need to prove they are safe, which is a nonsense thing to say because it preposterously presumes that we haven't already done that. And you recognize that, which is great. I claim that people who don't recognize that, can never be convinced, because they are obviously not able to be convinced by evidence, because the evidence is long since 'in'.
Exactly.
Lacy said this is the first time he has referred a case to the professional licensing board.
Right, so before this, Mr Lacy has always said "The petition is rejected because the petitioner doesn't know what he's talking about." Now Mr Lacy is trying a new way to reject a claim: "The petition is rejected because the petitioner does know what he's talking about."
Wow. With logic like that, Mr Lacy must have an easy job.
My eyes had to rescan the headline several times trying to make grammatical sense of the construction until I realized there was a missing hyphen between the first two words. At first I thought there was a preposition missing between the second and third words. Bad grammar makes reading more difficult. In the 12 years that I've been reading Slashdot, the stories have always had bad grammar, and that has never been excusable. This isn't some rinkydink site, it's a major internet destination. Its grammar should be better than it is.
If I were him, I might have gone down to the local soup kitchen and told a couple homeless people about it, and given them each a few tickets to demonstrate it. That community could have benefited for a few weeks or months before the lotto figured it out.
Well usually there would be third parties to the transaction. Yeah, great, the coal plant and the pond owner both want to dump toxic sludge into the pond. Well the people who live downstream don't want that.
I can't think of a law which *nobody* supports, which is your scenario. There's a lot of criticism of the Obamacare "individual mandate" (which isn't a mandate at all, but I digress): but while one individual may not want to buy insurance, the rest of society wants him to, because they are the ones who have to care for him when he has an accident.
Another would be, say, drug use. Yeah, great, both the dealer and the junkie want to make the transaction, but that's not the whole story. The rest of society claims to have a stake in the transaction because they are the ones who have to deal with the externalities of the transaction.
It's okay, we can disagree with this. I accept that the government necessarily and tautologically "tells its subjects what is best". When I disagree and think I know better, then I try to convince others, and in a functional constitutional democracy, eventually we should get our way. And when I don't get my way, I don't blame it on ideological failures in the law.
If a criminal commits a crime, let's say theft, then I'd say it is reasonable to assert that the criminal "thinks it is best" that he steal the thing. Thus, the law is "them" (the government) telling the criminal that "they" know what is best.
Do you disagree with that? This is interesting to me because I've often spoken with certain kinds of thinkers who cannot wrap their mind around my assertion that of course the government tells you "what they think is best". It's sort of the entire point of the law, from my perspective. And yet, I haven't completely given up on the possibility that I'm really missing something, some really good point that underlies the notions held by those thinkers, which could turn around my opinion on the matter. Can you convince me? Or try?
To me more clear, "laws based on protecting individual rights" are great because I believe in individual rights -- most likely, the same individual rights you believe in. But, still, that's you and me saying that we know better than others which rights are held by individuals. I never make arguments which say "Oh, that law is stupid or invalid because it is just the government telling me how to live my life", because ALL laws (in my understanding of the law) do that, and I'm not willing to discard with the entire notion of law.
The Bible names several tools which scholars cannot identify. I'm not a Biblical scholar so I can't name them from memory, but there were units of measure and other weird tools for which the Bible gives the name but no description, and none survive today.
This forum is so completely chock full of great examples of tools no longer in use that the premise of the article is preposterously stupid.
Would you say that any law at all is an assertion that "they" know best? Or would you not say that?
On the Messages Prefs page (messages.pl?op=display_prefs), in Safari I have a gray box with my user info and a second gray box showing that I have moderator points, both above "This is you!"; and that is above the Message Preferences box. In FireFox, however, those two gray boxes also are shown below the Message Preferences, whereas in Safari they are only shown above. It looks like there is slightly different html being sent to each browser.
When I go to my Messages (messages.pl?op=list), it shows my messages like before, but the links to individual messages are broken. I click the link, and I'm not looking at my comment, or I'm not looking at the reply to my comment. I'm looking at some other comment in the same discussion.
The redesign, though, is fine. I agree that there's a bit too much space between everything, but the whole look is nice.
When you upload to Facebook, you are stating that you DO have those rights taken care of. Thus, if your friend takes your picture and uploads it, they are claiming to have your permission; if Facebook uses that photo, they have an agreement with the provider (your friend) in good faith. It is your friend who did something wrong, and your friend whom you should sue for damages.
And THAT my friends is why intellectual property, and Facebook, are both absurd and terrible.
To be clear, I was responding to bberens, not you. I agree very much with everything you wrote in your grandparent post.
The part where you don't cite, of course.
I assert that there is no law anywhere in America requiring you to show the police an ID when peacefully sitting in a coffee shop. This has been my understanding since civics class in high school, confirmed by speeches from ACLU lawyers, and bolstered by pretty much everything I've ever learned about American law. If you want to assert that I am wrong, and that a police officer can contact you for no reason, demand and ID, and put you in jail when you politely decline -- well, that assertion is so preposterous that I'm willing to dismiss it without looking it up for myself, because I have already looked it up for myself many times during my life. Thus, cite or you're full of it.
If you're talking about an HR department, then you're talking about a job, and if you're talking about a job then you're the kind of person who benefits from a degree. The kind of person who doesn't need a degree, is the kind of person who owns the HR department.
Sounds like rationalization to me.
Yes, the most extremely exceptional people succeed without needing credentials of any kind. A highly driven genius doesn't need to prove he's a driven genius to a college professor before attaining success (though it often helps).
For people who aren't that one-in-ten-million person, college is a good bet. I personally have benefited substantially from doing a four-year stint in college. It's helps mediocre joes like me.
Denigrating those 999,999/1,000,000 people as drones shows you are either looking down on us from a position as that 1/1,000,000 people, or looking up at us jealously as one of the people who couldn't get through college himself. Considering you have time to waste on Slashdot, I have my own guess as to which it is.