How else can we verify that all the signatures are valid?
How else can you verify that all votes are valid? Seriously, it's the same problem, they should be solved the same way. I would much rather have a system where petitioners pass out (or even mail) cards to be filled in by voters, then those voters mail them into the county registrar of voters who tabulates them the same way absentee votes are. That system isn't perfect, but it allows for anonymous voting with at least a measure of anonymity. Yes, it would be a big change from how petitions are handled now, but I think we would all be better off for it.
(This will also increase costs on the county clerk. Those costs should be borne by the people pushing the petition in the first place as part of their filing fee.)
My argument is that this ruling is a slippery slope. Saying there are other safeguards in place is not a particularly cogent argument in favor of removing a different safeguard. Because eventually, someone, somewhere, will find a reason to remove the one you're now relying on (you're own post implies that much of that safeguard, requiring warrants, has already been watered down, and I agree with that sentiment).
Not everything on a petition has a moral component to it. What if there's a petition calling for a reduction in prison time for non-violent offenders? It doesn't pass, but now the cops have a list of people to "check up on" to see if they're drug users or visit prostitutes? Yes, that's somewhat of a far-fetched example, but it's exactly the kind of behavior that requires anonymous voting. I fail to see how anonymous petition signing is any different.
Do you feel the same way about anonymous voting? Or should people have to make public their stances on whom they voted for?
What happens when someone signs a petition to legalize pot, for example, and their employer later fires them on the assumption that "they must be a pot head, stoner hippy"?
I work in IT for one of the largest companies in the world, with over 300,000 employees just in the United States, not counting contractors who would push the number up quite a bit more (I have no idea how many employees there are outside of the States, but suspect it's at least double that number). On my team of about 30 people, there is not a one who's under 30. Of the four sysadmins on the team, I'm the youngest at 38 (the next youngest is 39, the other two are both over 50). So, tell me again how one's career ends when you reach 40?
Not yet, he isn't. But that appears to be his plan: raise his profile sufficiently high that kidnapping him would raise even more questions (and virtually ensure plenty of people willing to step in and take his place).
Just so we're clear, the followers of both Jesus and Mohammad, once they had any political power, were bloodthirsty monsters. Some of them (both groups) still are.
But we're not talking about the followers, we're talking about the founders. If your argument is that Jesus didn't have the opportunity to push his brand of lunacy with the sword as Mohammad did, and that he would've if given the chance, then that's just pure speculation. Granted, Mohammad was wealthy thanks to marrying a rich cougar (one of the things he did in life I most admire) and that certainly gave him much more political power than an unemployed, itinerant carpenter. But we can't really know that since we don't know enough about the man to make a guess.
I will say that the Maccabees staged something like that less than 100 years before, and the zealots were going around killing people contemporaneously with him doing his preachin'. And that his followers apparently believed enough in him to go to their deaths. So it would seem there was the possibility for armed insurrections to occur, and that he had enough true believers that he could've staged a coup, if he had wanted to. That he didn't seems to argue against the fact that he would've.
True, but any religion that embraces a concept like taaqiya can't be trusted to give a public accounting of what they really believe. So maybe those scholars are just being duplicitous with their denunciations. Who knows?
You're not getting it. Arabic culture so completely infuses Islam that to separate one from the other renders something completely different.
You seem to think that people with barbaric practices are not barbarians. How's that work?
Now, name one single Islamic culture that isn't completely overrun by Arabic barbarism. Even Turkish Sufism and Persians have been affected by it, much as they might want to dispute that fact.
As for my "hatred" of Arabs: the word "hate" gets thrown around a lot, most of the time inappropriately. For instance, it is incorrect to think I hate Arabs because their culture is worthless, with few redeeming qualities. OTOH, it is correct to say I hate you personally for being a small-minded fool who has drunk way too much "Islam is peace" Kool-Aid.
One last thing: I owe you an apology. You're not just a fucking idiot, you're a mother-fucking idiot. Sorry for not getting it right the first time.
You can't be extradited from the US for doing something that isn't a crime here.
That said, I really think Zuckerberg needs to man up and go to Pakistan. He wanted to "respect" those ignorant savages by turning off groups critical of them; now he can show just how much respect he has by putting his neck on the chopping block.
Man up, asshole. You lied down with dogs, you can't complain about all the fleas now.
With all due respect, you're a fucking idiot. Mohammad was an Arab; that fact alone is why Arabic culture, along with blood feuds and revenge fantasies, permeates the Muslim world.
Instead of debating about what "actual" Islam is, why don't you look at the way Islamic societies the world over behave? They're a bunch of nutjobs who think it's a good idea to cut off someone's hand for stealing a loaf of bread. They're barbarians and not worth the time of day.
Every religion is irrational, and all of them should be dismissed as the meanderings of insane minds used by evil minds to have control over weak minds. But don't kid yourself that there's a different Islamic culture out there that's somehow "more pure" than what we see today.
And I would much rather trust a biologist who's been trained in the scientific method to debunk irrational behavior than some moron who thinks the Invisible Sky Wizard likes to watch him masturbate.
I'm going to laugh my ass off when that little quisling goes to the UAE thinking "Dubai is modern, they wouldn't do anything", and then finds himself on the chopping block in Islamabad.
You can't be "guilty" of something that's morally upright and legally correct. Which I think people who think like this particular assclown (the lawyer, not Zuckerberg) would consider the acts you mentioned.
How about Facebook themselves caving to these assholes and blocking/deleting groups making fun of their irrational beliefs? I think Zuckerberg needs to put his neck where his mouth is, fly to Pakistan, and accept the consequences of being a milquetoast little quisling.
Not sure what point that's supposed to make. Large swaths of Europe were converted to Christianity at sword point.
Did Jesus do that? No? Then what's your point, exactly?
Oh, and there's that old "I come not to bring peace, but a sword". Lots of religions send mixed messages.
He also went timidly with the guards sent to arrest him and even healed one of them (according to the myth, anyway) when one of his followers drew out a sword. Not really comparable to what Mohammed did.
Politically motivated or not, religion was a useful tool to justify them.
It usually is. But I have to say, anyone upset about something that happened 1000 years ago is completely fucking insane and should probably be neutered just to keep their crap genes out of the pool.
Yeah, you can "filter" Google search results by date, but filter features are mediocre at best.
That's because data doesn't have a "best by" date. The reason your search results suck is the same reason this entire enterprise will fail spectacularly: data doesn't naturally expire, and there is no physical mechanism by which it would.
Slashdot Mirror
How else can we verify that all the signatures are valid?
How else can you verify that all votes are valid? Seriously, it's the same problem, they should be solved the same way. I would much rather have a system where petitioners pass out (or even mail) cards to be filled in by voters, then those voters mail them into the county registrar of voters who tabulates them the same way absentee votes are. That system isn't perfect, but it allows for anonymous voting with at least a measure of anonymity. Yes, it would be a big change from how petitions are handled now, but I think we would all be better off for it.
(This will also increase costs on the county clerk. Those costs should be borne by the people pushing the petition in the first place as part of their filing fee.)
My argument is that this ruling is a slippery slope. Saying there are other safeguards in place is not a particularly cogent argument in favor of removing a different safeguard. Because eventually, someone, somewhere, will find a reason to remove the one you're now relying on (you're own post implies that much of that safeguard, requiring warrants, has already been watered down, and I agree with that sentiment).
Not everything on a petition has a moral component to it. What if there's a petition calling for a reduction in prison time for non-violent offenders? It doesn't pass, but now the cops have a list of people to "check up on" to see if they're drug users or visit prostitutes? Yes, that's somewhat of a far-fetched example, but it's exactly the kind of behavior that requires anonymous voting. I fail to see how anonymous petition signing is any different.
Do you feel the same way about anonymous voting? Or should people have to make public their stances on whom they voted for?
What happens when someone signs a petition to legalize pot, for example, and their employer later fires them on the assumption that "they must be a pot head, stoner hippy"?
Well I did mod you down, so take that!
Oh, oops.
I work in IT for one of the largest companies in the world, with over 300,000 employees just in the United States, not counting contractors who would push the number up quite a bit more (I have no idea how many employees there are outside of the States, but suspect it's at least double that number). On my team of about 30 people, there is not a one who's under 30. Of the four sysadmins on the team, I'm the youngest at 38 (the next youngest is 39, the other two are both over 50). So, tell me again how one's career ends when you reach 40?
Not yet, he isn't. But that appears to be his plan: raise his profile sufficiently high that kidnapping him would raise even more questions (and virtually ensure plenty of people willing to step in and take his place).
It's their own fault. If animals didn't want to go extinct they'd stop being so tasty!
Funnily enough, it might be different if they were shipping something, even if it was just a novelty can of dog food.
What if it was a can of pork?
Best use of this slogan was when I randomly spotted it in a bumper sticker on the back of a cop car. Good times.
Just so we're clear, the followers of both Jesus and Mohammad, once they had any political power, were bloodthirsty monsters. Some of them (both groups) still are.
But we're not talking about the followers, we're talking about the founders. If your argument is that Jesus didn't have the opportunity to push his brand of lunacy with the sword as Mohammad did, and that he would've if given the chance, then that's just pure speculation. Granted, Mohammad was wealthy thanks to marrying a rich cougar (one of the things he did in life I most admire) and that certainly gave him much more political power than an unemployed, itinerant carpenter. But we can't really know that since we don't know enough about the man to make a guess.
I will say that the Maccabees staged something like that less than 100 years before, and the zealots were going around killing people contemporaneously with him doing his preachin'. And that his followers apparently believed enough in him to go to their deaths. So it would seem there was the possibility for armed insurrections to occur, and that he had enough true believers that he could've staged a coup, if he had wanted to. That he didn't seems to argue against the fact that he would've.
Interesting notion to consider, though.
True, but any religion that embraces a concept like taaqiya can't be trusted to give a public accounting of what they really believe. So maybe those scholars are just being duplicitous with their denunciations. Who knows?
You're not getting it. Arabic culture so completely infuses Islam that to separate one from the other renders something completely different.
You seem to think that people with barbaric practices are not barbarians. How's that work?
Now, name one single Islamic culture that isn't completely overrun by Arabic barbarism. Even Turkish Sufism and Persians have been affected by it, much as they might want to dispute that fact.
As for my "hatred" of Arabs: the word "hate" gets thrown around a lot, most of the time inappropriately. For instance, it is incorrect to think I hate Arabs because their culture is worthless, with few redeeming qualities. OTOH, it is correct to say I hate you personally for being a small-minded fool who has drunk way too much "Islam is peace" Kool-Aid.
One last thing: I owe you an apology. You're not just a fucking idiot, you're a mother-fucking idiot. Sorry for not getting it right the first time.
Bing bing bing! We have a winner!
Mohammad was a child-raping psychopath and Allah doesn't exist.
There, now CmdrTaco can't go to Dubai.
You can't be extradited from the US for doing something that isn't a crime here.
That said, I really think Zuckerberg needs to man up and go to Pakistan. He wanted to "respect" those ignorant savages by turning off groups critical of them; now he can show just how much respect he has by putting his neck on the chopping block.
Man up, asshole. You lied down with dogs, you can't complain about all the fleas now.
With all due respect, you're a fucking idiot. Mohammad was an Arab; that fact alone is why Arabic culture, along with blood feuds and revenge fantasies, permeates the Muslim world.
Instead of debating about what "actual" Islam is, why don't you look at the way Islamic societies the world over behave? They're a bunch of nutjobs who think it's a good idea to cut off someone's hand for stealing a loaf of bread. They're barbarians and not worth the time of day.
Every religion is irrational, and all of them should be dismissed as the meanderings of insane minds used by evil minds to have control over weak minds. But don't kid yourself that there's a different Islamic culture out there that's somehow "more pure" than what we see today.
And I would much rather trust a biologist who's been trained in the scientific method to debunk irrational behavior than some moron who thinks the Invisible Sky Wizard likes to watch him masturbate.
I'm going to laugh my ass off when that little quisling goes to the UAE thinking "Dubai is modern, they wouldn't do anything", and then finds himself on the chopping block in Islamabad.
You can't be "guilty" of something that's morally upright and legally correct. Which I think people who think like this particular assclown (the lawyer, not Zuckerberg) would consider the acts you mentioned.
How about Facebook themselves caving to these assholes and blocking/deleting groups making fun of their irrational beliefs? I think Zuckerberg needs to put his neck where his mouth is, fly to Pakistan, and accept the consequences of being a milquetoast little quisling.
Not sure what point that's supposed to make. Large swaths of Europe were converted to Christianity at sword point.
Did Jesus do that? No? Then what's your point, exactly?
Oh, and there's that old "I come not to bring peace, but a sword". Lots of religions send mixed messages.
He also went timidly with the guards sent to arrest him and even healed one of them (according to the myth, anyway) when one of his followers drew out a sword. Not really comparable to what Mohammed did.
Politically motivated or not, religion was a useful tool to justify them.
It usually is. But I have to say, anyone upset about something that happened 1000 years ago is completely fucking insane and should probably be neutered just to keep their crap genes out of the pool.
you are NOTHING.
And you are apparently out of medication. Better call Walgreens!
Islamic countries tend to stick together for no other reason than they happen to be islamic.
That certainly explains why Saudi Arabia just gave overflight permission to the Israelis to attack Iran.
Yeah, you can "filter" Google search results by date, but filter features are mediocre at best.
That's because data doesn't have a "best by" date. The reason your search results suck is the same reason this entire enterprise will fail spectacularly: data doesn't naturally expire, and there is no physical mechanism by which it would.