Or, it is about slavishly following your religion and that voice in your head claiming to be god and telling you to kill your kid to appease it. I think my view is closer to the text that yours which is appears to your own interpretation to make your god out to be not such a psychopathic dick.
In the story, the god demands a human sacrifice of Abraham to test his loyalty. God says "Abraham, make a burn offering of your son." and Abraham makes no protest, doesn't cry, and takes his son out to kill him with no remorse. Not only does your god come off as a mean-spirited asshole, but Abraham comes off as a vicious sociopath willing to do anything the voice in his head tells him to do.
Everything in you post is post-hoc justification for the evil actions taken in the story by Abraham and his purported god.
Just because people are worshiping a god doesn't mean you have to worship it too like lemmings jumping over a cliff
How are you to know if your child is Hilter, Stalin, or Pol Pot? If I came up to you and said "Hi, your god sent me to tell you that your son will grow up to be an incredible evil who will kill millions of people so he wants you to take up the side of a mountain and kill him with a knife. Thanks, bye", would you kill your son?
The difference between that "holy" book and most others is that it takes a definitive viewpoint that all men are flawed and the ONLY redemption is by faith. Science doesn't deal, ever, with how flawed man really is.
Yeah, no. The reverse is more like reality. Science sees "Man" and humans as very clever animals and all animals as flawed. Almost every religion has humans as special. Many religions, including christianity, teach that humanity is special. Christianity teaches that each and every human is under the constant personal attention of an all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-present supernatural being who created the universe and wants humans to believe solely on the word of other humans.
Science does not make the assumption you claim. The bible doesn't assume one can fix any flaws with oneself or with others, rather one must give one's self over to a questionable supernatural being for whom there is no evidence, accept one's place in the world, working for one's betters with a glad and grateful heart so that one will be rewarded after one dies.
Your statement about "the two stories" seems to indicate a mentality of "the ends justifies the means" as in "it is OK for someone to allow a mob to rape his daughters to protect what is supposedly a powerful angel that can lay waste to the entire crowd or just fly away".
McCarran-Ferguson delegates the insurance regulation exclusively to the states and prevents interstate trade in insurance policies. See Article 1, Section 8, last paragraph for Congresses authority to do this. Because Congress is constitutionally limited to regulating interstate trade (U.S. Constitution Art1, Sec8 , Para3), Congress does not have the constitutional authority to regulate, including mandating the purchasing of, insurance policies.
Basically, by banning the interstate trade of insurance policies and explicitly putting the regulation of insurance in the hands of the individual states, Congress gave up it's right to control insurance. If Congress actually wants to mandate the purchasing of insurance, first it needs to repeal McCarran-Ferguson. Insurance companies don't want this because they have a state based monopolies. In each state there is a single large insurance company, which is a subsidiary of a national company which sells no policies but collects profits from it's subsidiaries, with no significant competition. Which company is the largest varies, but, as they are protected from competition and anti-trust laws, it is extremely hard to remove the entrenched companies.
Personally, I think the fed should look into buying failing hospitals and starting a kind of HealthCorp, where the government pays for people to enter the healthcare profession and provides training in exchange for a service-year-for-training-year contract. If it takes one 8 years to become a doctor, one then does 8 years as a doctor in the HealthCorp. Enlistees would get a living wage and an education, and the population would get less expensive health care.
I want to see your argument that it is unconstitutional. Upon what grounds?
U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
U.S. Constitution Amendment 10:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 Grants states the right to regulate insurance plans within their borders, protects insurance firms in each state from interstate competition, and exempts the business of insurance from most federal regulation.
Because McCarran-Ferguson prevents interstate trade of insurance, and reserves for the states the right to regulate insurance plans, including health plans, Obamacare is unconstitutional under both Amendment 10 and Article 1, Section 8, Paragraphy 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Just so I can make fun of your Tea-bag damaged brain
Any other questions or are you done making an ass out of yourself? Perhaps if you were not brain damaged, you would actually have bothered to learn about the laws and arguments.
My state is one of the ones suing to stop the law using a version of this argument.
Really, my only problem with the law is what I described. If they want to keep Obamacare, then they need to make it legal to sell insurance across state lines. If they don't want to make it legal to sell insurance across state lines, then it should be left to the individual states as Romney did with MA.
If you look, you will see that it is Aetna of [insert state], Cigna of [ insert state]. What they do is set up subsidiary companies in each state they serve to write and sell insurance. The profits are then funneled up to the parent company. This is why, when there is a major disaster in a state, the individual state companies say they need to raise the rates. A large portion of the premiums have been sent back home to the mother company, leaving the state company short of cash.
Brilliant way around the law and it is also why, generally, in each state there is a single company that holds most of the business.
You are not required to purchase them for your own personal use.You do not pay for those things. You pay for the government that provides services and protection from hostile countries and peoples. The government purchase those things to protect and serve you and the rest of the country. If you don't like the idea that some of your tax dollars may have gone to those things, you can believe that all your taxes went to NASA and foreign aid and disaster relief and all of mine went to purchasing those things. That is close enough to the truth of it.
Also, it would probably be constitutional if there weren't a law against selling insurance across state lines. That law prevents interstate trade in insurance, thus putting regulation of same out of the purview of Congress and the federal government.
Having seen too many videos edited to show how the other side was wrong, then finding the full video showing how the first side started shit, I no longer believe pictures, video, etc.
There are just too many people who get their friends to film them starting shit and only post the response to their shit and cry foul.
The ToS is a contract that is already signed by the company/person running the site. If you make changes and accept the changed ToS, you have changed the contract after one of signing parties has signed without said party's permission. As soon as one accepts the terms, one is committing fraud and if one accesses the site after such an act, one may be violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse act.
This PETA porn site will attract sadistic sociopaths who like to combine sex, abuse, and torture. Who knows, maybe they will kick off a few new serial killers.
You may be right. But, I think there may be a problem with the result of the change.
the term “exceeds authorized access” means to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter, but does not include access in violation of a contractual obligation or agreement, such as an acceptable use policy or terms of service agreement, with an Internet service provider, Internet website, or non-government employer, if such violation constitutes the sole basis for determining that access to a protected computer is unauthorized;
This change re-defines "exceeds authorized access". What is should do is define "authorized access" and/or "unauthorized access". As it is worded, it only protects those who are logged in at the time of the ToS violation. If the ToS/acceptable use policy states that violations result in a loss of authorization to access, the next time one logs in, one is committing unauthorized access even if one's username and password works. (Theory behind this is the "breaking and entering" statues which includes entering without authorization by use of any force, even nudging open a partially closed door. Even if you have keys, if you don't have authorization for the authorized occupant or owner of a space, using the keys and entering the space is considered breaking and entering).
Won't do you any good because no human has agreed to your terms of service as you did to access the service in the first place. You have a computer agreeing not to place any restrictions, a computer with no authority to make such an agreement.
A misdemeanor is still a crime, just a less serious crime. The amendment exempts ToS violations from being felonies, but does not stop them from being misdemeanors, then they are still crimes.
Actually, climate science isn't "truth". It is science, which can often be wrong or just partially true. There is a lot of controversy over climate change and it's causes. Using contested science to justify social and political changes will cause a lot more negative feedback than saying "We think the planet orbiting this pulsar is made of diamond. It is really far away and will not effect you in any way."
Really, this article has dramatically lowers my opinion of Bailes because he spotlights the reactions to two different scientific claims while ignoring their much greater differences.
Try reading the agreement with the internet service provider. In almost every case, the contract or terms of service say whoever is signing up for the service accepts all legal responsibility for use of the service. This absolves the carrier of legal responsibility and gives both the carrier and the police someone to blame. Whomever's name is on the account has probably legally accepted responsibility for all actions using the account.
But, in a case like this, what most-likely will happen is they will show up with a warrant for ALL the computers, hard drives, etc.; examine the contents of ALL the computers; and then file charges as appropriate. The fun part will be when they search and find a bag of pot or some pills, or if they look at one of the computers or hard drives and they find pics of the 17yo girlfriend or hookup.
Yes, when the GP is complaining that people who generally need hearing aids can't afford them because they are old and on fixed incomes, i.e. retired and living on Social Security and any savings they have. Medicare, which said people qualify for, pays for the hearing aids. And, remember, many hearing aids are hand made to a custom fit, which is one reason they are so expensive.
But, by Anonymous' own words, Anonymous is everyone and thus anyone who claims to be a member of Anonymous is one. There is no core definition of Anonymous other than claiming to be Anonymous and performing such attacks.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, it is about slavishly following your religion and that voice in your head claiming to be god and telling you to kill your kid to appease it. I think my view is closer to the text that yours which is appears to your own interpretation to make your god out to be not such a psychopathic dick.
In the story, the god demands a human sacrifice of Abraham to test his loyalty. God says "Abraham, make a burn offering of your son." and Abraham makes no protest, doesn't cry, and takes his son out to kill him with no remorse. Not only does your god come off as a mean-spirited asshole, but Abraham comes off as a vicious sociopath willing to do anything the voice in his head tells him to do.
Everything in you post is post-hoc justification for the evil actions taken in the story by Abraham and his purported god.
Just because people are worshiping a god doesn't mean you have to worship it too like lemmings jumping over a cliff
Oh, and your analogy is completely false.
How are you to know if your child is Hilter, Stalin, or Pol Pot? If I came up to you and said "Hi, your god sent me to tell you that your son will grow up to be an incredible evil who will kill millions of people so he wants you to take up the side of a mountain and kill him with a knife. Thanks, bye", would you kill your son?
The difference between that "holy" book and most others is that it takes a definitive viewpoint that all men are flawed and the ONLY redemption is by faith. Science doesn't deal, ever, with how flawed man really is.
Yeah, no. The reverse is more like reality. Science sees "Man" and humans as very clever animals and all animals as flawed. Almost every religion has humans as special. Many religions, including christianity, teach that humanity is special. Christianity teaches that each and every human is under the constant personal attention of an all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-present supernatural being who created the universe and wants humans to believe solely on the word of other humans.
Science does not make the assumption you claim. The bible doesn't assume one can fix any flaws with oneself or with others, rather one must give one's self over to a questionable supernatural being for whom there is no evidence, accept one's place in the world, working for one's betters with a glad and grateful heart so that one will be rewarded after one dies.
Your statement about "the two stories" seems to indicate a mentality of "the ends justifies the means" as in "it is OK for someone to allow a mob to rape his daughters to protect what is supposedly a powerful angel that can lay waste to the entire crowd or just fly away".
McCarran-Ferguson delegates the insurance regulation exclusively to the states and prevents interstate trade in insurance policies. See Article 1, Section 8, last paragraph for Congresses authority to do this. Because Congress is constitutionally limited to regulating interstate trade (U.S. Constitution Art1, Sec8 , Para3), Congress does not have the constitutional authority to regulate, including mandating the purchasing of, insurance policies.
Basically, by banning the interstate trade of insurance policies and explicitly putting the regulation of insurance in the hands of the individual states, Congress gave up it's right to control insurance. If Congress actually wants to mandate the purchasing of insurance, first it needs to repeal McCarran-Ferguson. Insurance companies don't want this because they have a state based monopolies. In each state there is a single large insurance company, which is a subsidiary of a national company which sells no policies but collects profits from it's subsidiaries, with no significant competition. Which company is the largest varies, but, as they are protected from competition and anti-trust laws, it is extremely hard to remove the entrenched companies.
Personally, I think the fed should look into buying failing hospitals and starting a kind of HealthCorp, where the government pays for people to enter the healthcare profession and provides training in exchange for a service-year-for-training-year contract. If it takes one 8 years to become a doctor, one then does 8 years as a doctor in the HealthCorp. Enlistees would get a living wage and an education, and the population would get less expensive health care.
I want to see your argument that it is unconstitutional. Upon what grounds?
U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
U.S. Constitution Amendment 10:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 Grants states the right to regulate insurance plans within their borders, protects insurance firms in each state from interstate competition, and exempts the business of insurance from most federal regulation.
Because McCarran-Ferguson prevents interstate trade of insurance, and reserves for the states the right to regulate insurance plans, including health plans, Obamacare is unconstitutional under both Amendment 10 and Article 1, Section 8, Paragraphy 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Just so I can make fun of your Tea-bag damaged brain
Any other questions or are you done making an ass out of yourself? Perhaps if you were not brain damaged, you would actually have bothered to learn about the laws and arguments.
My state is one of the ones suing to stop the law using a version of this argument.
Really, my only problem with the law is what I described. If they want to keep Obamacare, then they need to make it legal to sell insurance across state lines. If they don't want to make it legal to sell insurance across state lines, then it should be left to the individual states as Romney did with MA.
If you look, you will see that it is Aetna of [insert state], Cigna of [ insert state]. What they do is set up subsidiary companies in each state they serve to write and sell insurance. The profits are then funneled up to the parent company. This is why, when there is a major disaster in a state, the individual state companies say they need to raise the rates. A large portion of the premiums have been sent back home to the mother company, leaving the state company short of cash.
Brilliant way around the law and it is also why, generally, in each state there is a single company that holds most of the business.
You are not required to purchase them for your own personal use.You do not pay for those things. You pay for the government that provides services and protection from hostile countries and peoples. The government purchase those things to protect and serve you and the rest of the country. If you don't like the idea that some of your tax dollars may have gone to those things, you can believe that all your taxes went to NASA and foreign aid and disaster relief and all of mine went to purchasing those things. That is close enough to the truth of it.
Also, it would probably be constitutional if there weren't a law against selling insurance across state lines. That law prevents interstate trade in insurance, thus putting regulation of same out of the purview of Congress and the federal government.
Having seen too many videos edited to show how the other side was wrong, then finding the full video showing how the first side started shit, I no longer believe pictures, video, etc.
There are just too many people who get their friends to film them starting shit and only post the response to their shit and cry foul.
The ToS is a contract that is already signed by the company/person running the site. If you make changes and accept the changed ToS, you have changed the contract after one of signing parties has signed without said party's permission. As soon as one accepts the terms, one is committing fraud and if one accesses the site after such an act, one may be violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse act.
This PETA porn site will attract sadistic sociopaths who like to combine sex, abuse, and torture. Who knows, maybe they will kick off a few new serial killers.
Maybe, but that is by choice of the user.
Please see my other post where I talk about the location of the change being made.
You may be right. But, I think there may be a problem with the result of the change.
the term “exceeds authorized access” means to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter, but does not include access in violation of a contractual obligation or agreement, such as an acceptable use policy or terms of service agreement, with an Internet service provider, Internet website, or non-government employer, if such violation constitutes the sole basis for determining that access to a protected computer is unauthorized;
This change re-defines "exceeds authorized access". What is should do is define "authorized access" and/or "unauthorized access". As it is worded, it only protects those who are logged in at the time of the ToS violation. If the ToS/acceptable use policy states that violations result in a loss of authorization to access, the next time one logs in, one is committing unauthorized access even if one's username and password works. (Theory behind this is the "breaking and entering" statues which includes entering without authorization by use of any force, even nudging open a partially closed door. Even if you have keys, if you don't have authorization for the authorized occupant or owner of a space, using the keys and entering the space is considered breaking and entering).
It is different because, you, a person are making the agreement, an agreement presented by computer, but written by human.
You are using false dichotomy, a fallacy, to demonstrate something. That makes your demonstration fallacious.
Won't do you any good because no human has agreed to your terms of service as you did to access the service in the first place. You have a computer agreeing not to place any restrictions, a computer with no authority to make such an agreement.
A misdemeanor is still a crime, just a less serious crime. The amendment exempts ToS violations from being felonies, but does not stop them from being misdemeanors, then they are still crimes.
Actually, climate science isn't "truth". It is science, which can often be wrong or just partially true. There is a lot of controversy over climate change and it's causes. Using contested science to justify social and political changes will cause a lot more negative feedback than saying "We think the planet orbiting this pulsar is made of diamond. It is really far away and will not effect you in any way."
Really, this article has dramatically lowers my opinion of Bailes because he spotlights the reactions to two different scientific claims while ignoring their much greater differences.
Who says "you are liable"???
Try reading the agreement with the internet service provider. In almost every case, the contract or terms of service say whoever is signing up for the service accepts all legal responsibility for use of the service. This absolves the carrier of legal responsibility and gives both the carrier and the police someone to blame. Whomever's name is on the account has probably legally accepted responsibility for all actions using the account.
But, in a case like this, what most-likely will happen is they will show up with a warrant for ALL the computers, hard drives, etc.; examine the contents of ALL the computers; and then file charges as appropriate. The fun part will be when they search and find a bag of pot or some pills, or if they look at one of the computers or hard drives and they find pics of the 17yo girlfriend or hookup.
Yes, when the GP is complaining that people who generally need hearing aids can't afford them because they are old and on fixed incomes, i.e. retired and living on Social Security and any savings they have. Medicare, which said people qualify for, pays for the hearing aids. And, remember, many hearing aids are hand made to a custom fit, which is one reason they are so expensive.
You forgot the part where many of the expensive, high-quality hearing aids are custom fit and hand manufactured.
Medicare pays for hearing aids.
But, by Anonymous' own words, Anonymous is everyone and thus anyone who claims to be a member of Anonymous is one. There is no core definition of Anonymous other than claiming to be Anonymous and performing such attacks.