I heard some european head of state (Sarkozy perhaps) suggest that stock transactions be taxed based on speed
Short-term (less than two years) capital gains are already taxed as normal income, with only long-term capital gains and dividends being taxed at the 15% rate. This hasn't had any effect on stopping speculators from going nuts with these kinds of systems, it's hard to imagine any other sensible tax scheme would, either.
Not just that, but defamation lawsuits are notoriously difficult to win. You have to show that the defaming remark was untrue, that it caused material harm, and that the person making the remark knew it to be untrue. All she has to say is it was hyperbolic expression to show her displeasure and state her opinion, and the whole thing falls apart on its face.
Are you kidding? Someone's religion informs a great deal about them. From their outlook on life, their expectations from a partner, to how they spend their weekends, all of that can be tied up in their religion. If you enjoy going to clubs and drinking and dancing every Friday and Saturday night, you're not going to be happy dating or married to an Orthodox Jew or evangelical Christian, for instance.
One of the points in the summary was to bring up specific common interests. That's about as far away from telling someone to be different as you can get.
Anyone who has mastered FTL travel will be impossible to stop. They could bounce around us whenever we got close enough to engage.
If they've mastered accelerating physical objects to even a significant fraction of c, then they could wipe us out before we even know about them just by slamming an object (any object) into any point on the earth.
So preparing for a future hostile encounter with aliens where they don't care about our resources or ourselves is pointless. The fight will be over before we've realized it's begun.
How does turning off the cellular and Internet service prohibit BART employees from peaceably assembling, and petitioning for redress?
The BART managers flat out said they did this to prevent, or at least make it more difficult for, people to gather and protest. How does that not infringe on the right to peaceably assemble?
If it was, then what you are saying is that BART must operate the cell and Internet service as required by the 1st. That's not what are you saying is it?
They certainly weren't required to put it up at first, and they're not even required to keep it running indefinitely. But once it's up, they can't just pull the plug because they don't like it when people use it for protected activities (I think we agree on this point, we're just differing on what the protected activity was).
I'm not saying you're wrong about the other courses of action. By all means, the union members should sue the shit out of BART for impeding their ability to organize. I'm just saying that's not the only course of action available.
Sorry, we can't rally around this to scream about Free Speech and the government taking away our rights on this one. Wrong situation.
You seem to think that the First Amendment only talks about freedom of speech. It does not. It also talks about the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for redress. BART is not a private employer, it is a government agency, and under the 14th Amendment the rights guaranteed by the First are enforceable against them, as well.
So yes, BART very much violated the First Amendment rights of the people who were planning a protest. IF (not a typo) the protest had gotten out of hand, then perhaps they could've turned off the phone system to help disrupt it. But do so preemptively is a gross violation of the text and spirit of the First Amendment.
In short, someone needs to go to jail over this decision, let alone get fired.
We're bad at stewarding our own resources, because we leave in the ground and buy equivalent items cheaply from other countries? I think you misunderstand what "stewarding" means in this context, and what it means to be either good or bad at it.
That's such a good idea, Google is now not responding to the search request in that other post. Yes, it appears that we've slashdotted Google. I think that says a lot about just how much the Slashdot crowd disagrees with this business model.
Poetry is about emotion, not ideas or meaning. Poets, like all artists, seek to get a response from people. And because everyone is an individual, with their own prejudices, personal histories, and personalities, that response is going to be different from person to person. There's no "right" response to art; even indifference is a response.
This is why I personally love Pollack and other post-modern, abstract art: it's virtually guaranteed to make people stop and look at it, even if only to deride it as pointless.
No, that's the yeast in the bottle of wine. The stuff in the grape juice is capable of thinking and planning ahead. After all, why do you think it picked the grape juice in the first place?
Slashdot Mirror
You want me to abuse myself by thinking about you masturbation?
Well, it's on the east coast, so there a are a few possible culprits who come to mind who might do just that.
Is "whooooosh"?
I heard some european head of state (Sarkozy perhaps) suggest that stock transactions be taxed based on speed
Short-term (less than two years) capital gains are already taxed as normal income, with only long-term capital gains and dividends being taxed at the 15% rate. This hasn't had any effect on stopping speculators from going nuts with these kinds of systems, it's hard to imagine any other sensible tax scheme would, either.
Not just that, but defamation lawsuits are notoriously difficult to win. You have to show that the defaming remark was untrue, that it caused material harm, and that the person making the remark knew it to be untrue. All she has to say is it was hyperbolic expression to show her displeasure and state her opinion, and the whole thing falls apart on its face.
here in the UK the police seem to spend a lot of time infiltrating such organisations and acting as agent provocateurs from within
Same thing here in the US. Guess that apple didn't fall far from the tree, after all.
Are you kidding? Someone's religion informs a great deal about them. From their outlook on life, their expectations from a partner, to how they spend their weekends, all of that can be tied up in their religion. If you enjoy going to clubs and drinking and dancing every Friday and Saturday night, you're not going to be happy dating or married to an Orthodox Jew or evangelical Christian, for instance.
As usual, it's always up to the guy to start the conversation and the woman gets to weed out the candidates.
That's human nature. Get over it, or get used to being alone.
One of the points in the summary was to bring up specific common interests. That's about as far away from telling someone to be different as you can get.
Personally I would've gone with "Good morning, sir. Do you have any boxers that need ironing?"
What can be learned from the exploration of the moon or Mars?
Maybe nothing. But what can be gained from establishing a colony on the moon or Mars? Everything.
Anyone who has mastered FTL travel will be impossible to stop. They could bounce around us whenever we got close enough to engage.
If they've mastered accelerating physical objects to even a significant fraction of c, then they could wipe us out before we even know about them just by slamming an object (any object) into any point on the earth.
So preparing for a future hostile encounter with aliens where they don't care about our resources or ourselves is pointless. The fight will be over before we've realized it's begun.
because the lead designer really hates e.e. cummings.
How does turning off the cellular and Internet service prohibit BART employees from peaceably assembling, and petitioning for redress?
The BART managers flat out said they did this to prevent, or at least make it more difficult for, people to gather and protest. How does that not infringe on the right to peaceably assemble?
If it was, then what you are saying is that BART must operate the cell and Internet service as required by the 1st. That's not what are you saying is it?
They certainly weren't required to put it up at first, and they're not even required to keep it running indefinitely. But once it's up, they can't just pull the plug because they don't like it when people use it for protected activities (I think we agree on this point, we're just differing on what the protected activity was).
I'm not saying you're wrong about the other courses of action. By all means, the union members should sue the shit out of BART for impeding their ability to organize. I'm just saying that's not the only course of action available.
Sorry, we can't rally around this to scream about Free Speech and the government taking away our rights on this one. Wrong situation.
You seem to think that the First Amendment only talks about freedom of speech. It does not. It also talks about the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for redress. BART is not a private employer, it is a government agency, and under the 14th Amendment the rights guaranteed by the First are enforceable against them, as well.
So yes, BART very much violated the First Amendment rights of the people who were planning a protest. IF (not a typo) the protest had gotten out of hand, then perhaps they could've turned off the phone system to help disrupt it. But do so preemptively is a gross violation of the text and spirit of the First Amendment.
In short, someone needs to go to jail over this decision, let alone get fired.
GIFT requires anonymity, not pseudonymity, you cockshit fuckwad.
We're bad at stewarding our own resources, because we leave in the ground and buy equivalent items cheaply from other countries? I think you misunderstand what "stewarding" means in this context, and what it means to be either good or bad at it.
Drones can fly significantly higher than RC planes or helicopters, and have a greater likelihood of interfering with air traffic.
Yo dawg, I heard you like meta jokes, so I put a meta joke in your meta joke so you can laugh while you laugh.
We never supported the Taliban. Read up on where they came from and how they took power before you go spouting nonsense like this.
Hint: when we supported Afghanistan, all of what would become the Taliban were kids.
That's such a good idea, Google is now not responding to the search request in that other post. Yes, it appears that we've slashdotted Google. I think that says a lot about just how much the Slashdot crowd disagrees with this business model.
Poetry is about emotion, not ideas or meaning. Poets, like all artists, seek to get a response from people. And because everyone is an individual, with their own prejudices, personal histories, and personalities, that response is going to be different from person to person. There's no "right" response to art; even indifference is a response.
This is why I personally love Pollack and other post-modern, abstract art: it's virtually guaranteed to make people stop and look at it, even if only to deride it as pointless.
There is no guarantee of return on all but insured investments.
AIG's close brush with extermination thanks to uncovered CDSs proves that not even insured investments provide a guarantee of safety.
Next time I'm finished with sex and want the woman to leave, I'm using this line.
No, that's the yeast in the bottle of wine. The stuff in the grape juice is capable of thinking and planning ahead. After all, why do you think it picked the grape juice in the first place?