The article does not explain why it would be difficult as a practical matter to ensure that payments do not get routed through other states. Can anyone clarify what they mean by this? What exactly would need to be done, and how difficult would it be?
I for one thank our beleaguered editors. I caught the article at 6:08 CST. The sky outside is clear, and the wind yesterday swept all the snow off my west-facing porch. I dunno if the other nine will be as lucky!
When I took the bar exam I had to use pen and paper, and we LIKED it that way!
Honestly though, I think there comes a point when if you want to test a person solely based on what they're able to keep in their head, you'll have to exclude most technology.
The summary leaves out several very important limits on this new law:
1. It does not apply to business that don't sell directly in interstate commerce. (This is narrower than the usual "affecting commerce" language Congress likes to use.) So your local lawn-care service for example may be exempt.
2. It only applies to businesses that use "form" contracts.
3. It only applies to those "form" contracts if the customer does not have a meaningful opportunity to negotiate.
I think you're right. The SCOTUS in United States v. Lopez ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) ruled that Congress cannot constitutionally regulate who can walk into a school zone carrying while a gun, because this is not interstate - commercial activity. It seems likely the same reasoning would apply to walking into or out of a school zone at all. But who's going to challenge the constitutionality of this kind of law?
If you're right, perhaps you could persuade the people who disagree with you by talking to them and using reason. But if you start the discussion by insulting them or the number of brain cells they have, do you really expect to get anywhere?
Actually, if you do have evidence, don't bother citing it.
In my own meandering experience, it seems to be a waste of one's time to try and argue with anyone who:
1. Starts their comments by throwing profanity at you, 2. Makes assumptions about your affiliation with a specific political group, 3. Calls you deranged, or 4. Apparently thinks they're your teacher or college professor, such that they can place expectations and demands on you regarding the nature of any response you post.
1. "Oh please. If this kind of "freedom" is important to you, then have you also sworn off commercial aviation, gotten a pilot's license, and purchased a Learjet" This assumes one can afford a Learjet. Lots of people can afford a truck, even if they only use it a few times per year. Most people cannot afford a Learjet. Most people, however, are willing to spend some extra money for some extra freedom and time savings.
2. "That's the whole reason we have places that rent cars, trucks, tow/hauling equipment, industrial equipment, etc" So if one plans a weekend trip to the state park, one should spend half of that time driving 100 miles to the nearest rental business, renting a truck, drive it 100 miles back home, picking up the camper, and then driving 50 miles to the park so he can enjoy the 1/2 of his weekend that remains?
3. "An even better solution is not dragging a crappy hotel room around on wheels, and simply renting a permanently-built hotel room at a hotel." Hotels are not generally built in the remote parts of the wilderness where people like to take campers. One could find a hotel nearby, but then half the weekend is lost in transit.
I think the problem all comes down to time. If I have a camper and a truck, I can spend more of my precious weekend actually relaxing in the woods, and less time filing out rental agreements.
This is a neat idea, but it would suffer from a lack of geographic unity.
How exactly will an Internet-based political party handle issues like where to build the school in my neighborhood, how high the bridges should be, or what the penalty should be for selling small quantities of marijuana? Wouldn't joining such a party actually harm my ability to influence the laws that actually affect me on a daily basis?
Also, why is it every new political party seems to charge right for the presidency? Why not state legislatures or even Congress first?
That is, they could use statistics to show that believing in Jesus Christ over Mohammed or Buddha or Gandalf does not produce a detectable intrinsic benefit to a believer. A very long-term study could be conducted to show the same for entire nations. The end result will be much worse than any disproof of the existence of God: religions will be exposed as harmless superstitions at best, or deliberate scams at worst.
I see two problems with this assertion:
1. It assumes that the study would demonstrate that there is no difference. Define "intrinsic benefit" by specific standards, and certain faiths will probably do better than others. For example, if I followed Jewish dietary restrictions, I'd probably live longer.
2. Most "believers" expect that they will be persecuted for their faith. They go into it knowing full well that they may be worse-off this side of heaven. How would the study change this?
I bought a PALM centro because it was easy to sync with Evolution on my Ubuntu Desktop. Palm began to lose market share rapidly. Then palm abandoned local sync with the Pre. Then palm got bought by HP, and has apparently disappeared.
So instead, I bought a Blackberry Bold, because it was almost as easy to sync with my Ubuntu desktop. Then Blackberry began to lose market share...
So tell me, slashdot, what phone can I move to now that will allow me to sync easily and locally with evolution on my Ubuntu desktop. (Local ethics rules and security concerns prevent me from using cloud services like google calendar)
On the other hand (and drifting way off topic) does the federal government in the United States have the constitutional authority to implement the provisions of UNCRC?
A few hours ago, there was a/. post about url redirect issues with facebook, twitter, etc. Many people posted links to nice firefox plugins which would filter some of that. At this point, thousands of people are probably pointing all sorts of interesting script-tweaking plugins at facebook to see what happens.
And ear marks to pay for adding turtle crossings to roads in Badlands, South Dakota.
My sister nearly hit a turtle in SD the other day, while driving on a highway near our home. It was the size of a car tire. We put up those turtle crossing signs to warn motorists of the danger, not to protect the turtles!
So, acquitted or an over-turned verdict and you can get off the list... but simply being arrested and the charges later being dropped? Is there a process for expungement in that situation?
Generally, yes. In South Dakota, for example, we already have automatic DNA sampling imposed upon anyone *arrested* for a felony. It is part of the booking procedure. If the felony charges are dropped, dismissed, or you are acquitted at trial, you can send a copy of the dismissal order to the state lab and the sample must then be destroyed. This has been the rule for about two years now. (The tricky part is, for cases where the charges get dismissed early-on, you sometimes have to go ask the judge to sign a separate order documenting the dismissal, just so you have something you CAN send to the state lab.)
While we should probably be happy to see more than one viable candidate for the search engine market, none seem to address privacy very well. Both Bing/Yahoo and Google are quite happy to tell you that they'll track user activity and use it to make a profit. Are there any viable alternatives left with more favorable privacy policies?
Slashdot Mirror
The article does not explain why it would be difficult as a practical matter to ensure that payments do not get routed through other states. Can anyone clarify what they mean by this? What exactly would need to be done, and how difficult would it be?
I for one thank our beleaguered editors. I caught the article at 6:08 CST. The sky outside is clear, and the wind yesterday swept all the snow off my west-facing porch. I dunno if the other nine will be as lucky!
When I took the bar exam I had to use pen and paper, and we LIKED it that way!
Honestly though, I think there comes a point when if you want to test a person solely based on what they're able to keep in their head, you'll have to exclude most technology.
You are not alone, my four-digit friend.
The summary leaves out several very important limits on this new law:
1. It does not apply to business that don't sell directly in interstate commerce. (This is narrower than the usual "affecting commerce" language Congress likes to use.) So your local lawn-care service for example may be exempt.
2. It only applies to businesses that use "form" contracts.
3. It only applies to those "form" contracts if the customer does not have a meaningful opportunity to negotiate.
I think you're right. The SCOTUS in United States v. Lopez ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) ruled that Congress cannot constitutionally regulate who can walk into a school zone carrying while a gun, because this is not interstate - commercial activity. It seems likely the same reasoning would apply to walking into or out of a school zone at all. But who's going to challenge the constitutionality of this kind of law?
Soil is mostly organic material. Dirt is mostly minerals.
I think you have those two words defined exactly backwards.
Also crops are still regularly rotated between soybeans, alfalfa, and corn even among farmers who sell corn for ethanol production.
Beyond that, I suppose you're technically correct. Heaven knows most of us would benefit from eating a little less food.
If you're right, perhaps you could persuade the people who disagree with you by talking to them and using reason. But if you start the discussion by insulting them or the number of brain cells they have, do you really expect to get anywhere?
South Dakota State University, an accredited, division 1 school, has an average annual cost of $13,214.50, which INCLUDES housing and food.
Actually, if you do have evidence, don't bother citing it.
In my own meandering experience, it seems to be a waste of one's time to try and argue with anyone who:
1. Starts their comments by throwing profanity at you,
2. Makes assumptions about your affiliation with a specific political group,
3. Calls you deranged, or
4. Apparently thinks they're your teacher or college professor, such that they can place expectations and demands on you regarding the nature of any response you post.
Don't feed the troll.
Some problems with this approach:
1. "Oh please. If this kind of "freedom" is important to you, then have you also sworn off commercial aviation, gotten a pilot's license, and purchased a Learjet" This assumes one can afford a Learjet. Lots of people can afford a truck, even if they only use it a few times per year. Most people cannot afford a Learjet. Most people, however, are willing to spend some extra money for some extra freedom and time savings.
2. "That's the whole reason we have places that rent cars, trucks, tow/hauling equipment, industrial equipment, etc" So if one plans a weekend trip to the state park, one should spend half of that time driving 100 miles to the nearest rental business, renting a truck, drive it 100 miles back home, picking up the camper, and then driving 50 miles to the park so he can enjoy the 1/2 of his weekend that remains?
3. "An even better solution is not dragging a crappy hotel room around on wheels, and simply renting a permanently-built hotel room at a hotel." Hotels are not generally built in the remote parts of the wilderness where people like to take campers. One could find a hotel nearby, but then half the weekend is lost in transit.
I think the problem all comes down to time. If I have a camper and a truck, I can spend more of my precious weekend actually relaxing in the woods, and less time filing out rental agreements.
This is a neat idea, but it would suffer from a lack of geographic unity.
How exactly will an Internet-based political party handle issues like where to build the school in my neighborhood, how high the bridges should be, or what the penalty should be for selling small quantities of marijuana? Wouldn't joining such a party actually harm my ability to influence the laws that actually affect me on a daily basis?
Also, why is it every new political party seems to charge right for the presidency? Why not state legislatures or even Congress first?
That is, they could use statistics to show that believing in Jesus Christ over Mohammed or Buddha or Gandalf does not produce a detectable intrinsic benefit to a believer. A very long-term study could be conducted to show the same for entire nations. The end result will be much worse than any disproof of the existence of God: religions will be exposed as harmless superstitions at best, or deliberate scams at worst.
I see two problems with this assertion:
1. It assumes that the study would demonstrate that there is no difference. Define "intrinsic benefit" by specific standards, and certain faiths will probably do better than others. For example, if I followed Jewish dietary restrictions, I'd probably live longer.
2. Most "believers" expect that they will be persecuted for their faith. They go into it knowing full well that they may be worse-off this side of heaven. How would the study change this?
Good luck on starting your religion!
What phone should I move to now?
I bought a PALM centro because it was easy to sync with Evolution on my Ubuntu Desktop. Palm began to lose market share rapidly. Then palm abandoned local sync with the Pre. Then palm got bought by HP, and has apparently disappeared.
So instead, I bought a Blackberry Bold, because it was almost as easy to sync with my Ubuntu desktop. Then Blackberry began to lose market share...
So tell me, slashdot, what phone can I move to now that will allow me to sync easily and locally with evolution on my Ubuntu desktop. (Local ethics rules and security concerns prevent me from using cloud services like google calendar)
How do you feel about apps which help innocent people to avoid being questioned about their activities by a man with a gun?
On the other hand (and drifting way off topic) does the federal government in the United States have the constitutional authority to implement the provisions of UNCRC?
I live in a small town (about 13,000 people)...
13,000 would make your "small town" the 8th or 9th largest city in South Dakota.
There will be no market for this product. Nobody wants to listen to reason, and it does not sell advertising.
We want to hear that grandma will be put out of her home by the evil "OTHER" candidate.
We want to hear that the highways are riddled with drunks and unsafe cars.
We don't want to hear that grandma's income is actually quite safe, or that highway fatalities today kill fewer people than suicide.
A few hours ago, there was a /. post about url redirect issues with facebook, twitter, etc. Many people posted links to nice firefox plugins which would filter some of that. At this point, thousands of people are probably pointing all sorts of interesting script-tweaking plugins at facebook to see what happens.
Maybe thats what happened?
And ear marks to pay for adding turtle crossings to roads in Badlands, South Dakota.
My sister nearly hit a turtle in SD the other day, while driving on a highway near our home. It was the size of a car tire. We put up those turtle crossing signs to warn motorists of the danger, not to protect the turtles!
So, acquitted or an over-turned verdict and you can get off the list... but simply being arrested and the charges later being dropped? Is there a process for expungement in that situation?
Generally, yes. In South Dakota, for example, we already have automatic DNA sampling imposed upon anyone *arrested* for a felony. It is part of the booking procedure. If the felony charges are dropped, dismissed, or you are acquitted at trial, you can send a copy of the dismissal order to the state lab and the sample must then be destroyed. This has been the rule for about two years now. (The tricky part is, for cases where the charges get dismissed early-on, you sometimes have to go ask the judge to sign a separate order documenting the dismissal, just so you have something you CAN send to the state lab.)
While we should probably be happy to see more than one viable candidate for the search engine market, none seem to address privacy very well. Both Bing/Yahoo and Google are quite happy to tell you that they'll track user activity and use it to make a profit. Are there any viable alternatives left with more favorable privacy policies?
Fair enough, what word do you use to describe those who DO affirmatively assert that there is no god?
Writing isn't sacred, it's just another occupation like woodchopping or running the cash register at the 7-11.
This is an interesting point of view given your signature:
"A lot" is two words. You wouldn't say "alittle", would you?
Apparently writing correctly is important. Then again, I so is getting the correct change at the 7-11, I suppose?