Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Calling the Bible stories fiction is really a stretch, especially in light of the fact that you have no way of proving so. The best argument you could make would be that you, personally haven't observed divine intervention. Even though I'm a Christian, and don't recognize the Koran, I realize that I can't call it fiction without departing from logical argument territory.
Likewise the Harry Potter books. Just because I've never observed any wizards, doesn't mean they're not holed up in a magical tavern hiding from the rest of the world.
Free speech is protected from government intrusion, specifically. Nothing says we the people can't get right in their faces and shut them up or shout them down.
Well then it would seem like someone murdering them and getting away with it would be a win all around. We'd be happy to have them gone, they'd be happy to be gone.
Even worse, this is an area where there is a significant faction convinced that the truth is being covered up, much like the tobacco companies successfully did for years with the relationship between smoking and cancer. The prior success of this strategy by powerful corporate interests means that people have a justifiable lack of faith in the published science.
So give people the information, let them make their own decisions, and if they don't get cancer while the rest of us do, they can say I told you so, and the rest of us can feel like the idiot smokers with lung cancer did. Or not. Whichever outcome happens, the labeling seems like a minimally intrusive requirement.
and compiler researchers concede that a competent human will outperform a compiler for the foreseeable future. so your statement about compilers is total hand-waving away of facts inconvenient to your argument.
Define competent and compiler researchers for that claim. Most compiler researchers I know think the compiler passed the capabilities of basically all human programmers a long time ago. The compiler can evaluate combinatorial options of instruction ordering for efficiency that are comfortably out of reach of the best brains in the business.
I frankly don't care. He went to a church with a pastor who turned out to have some anti-white feelings. Frankly, what sane black man in this country wouldn't after what they've been through? He went to Bill Ayers house. The guy was a radical decades ago. Who fucking cares?
Anyway, the whole point of this discussion was really not about Obama, but rather the people who elected him. Has Obama himself espoused any demonstrably counterfactual crazy claims? If so, I suspect liberals will NOT reelect him.
Seriously, find me the thing that Obama himself believes, and which has been rigorously proven false, ala the birther beliefs.
Well, because the VCs were the powerful side in the original contract negotiation. I assume they had competent lawyers advise them before making multi-million-dollar investment decisions. I know the VCs who invested in my startup did. They have hugely favorable contracts that do their best to protect them from all kinds of malfeasance the startup partners could have gotten up to.
But he can sign two separate contracts: 1) giving them XX% of facebook for the vc money 2) giving them all of his assets in the event he failed to disclose anything to them in any way in contract 1.
I don't know if they actually did such contracts, but if I were making a huge investment like that, I'd certainly have done so, and I hope a competent contract lawyer would suggest it if they were my paid advisor.
Yeah, the problem is that the states don't necessarily need or want to outlaw anything or everything that the federal government can and will. It's actually somewhat like slavery: the federal government wanted to ban it, but a bunch of states did not. In that case we wound up fighting a war to settle the issue.
My point is almost entirely that I would HAVE to read up on any such thing. This message just plain ISN'T out there to any meaningful degree like it is with the right wing religious agenda.
In theory, it would have motivated him to avoid this situation. And realistically it would actually be likely to recover all the VCs investment, if not their profit.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean the one that says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There aren't any monkeys, those are evolutionist simulacrums designed to obfuscate the issue.
Well ... most creationists do believe that man can sin against god's will. His wimpy schwimpy will that has no power over reality.
Homeschooling is the solution to all your problems. And a helpful source of them for your kids!
Could you clarify where that's defined in the constitution in a way that would apply to the state of Louisiana?
Sorry, there aren't any christian atheists the way there are scientist creationists, so it'd be hard to claim the controversy is real.
Seriously, the world is getting very competitive, and my kids could use a little breathing room.
Thanks,
Surt
Likewise the Harry Potter books. Just because I've never observed any wizards, doesn't mean they're not holed up in a magical tavern hiding from the rest of the world.
Free speech is protected from government intrusion, specifically. Nothing says we the people can't get right in their faces and shut them up or shout them down.
Well then it would seem like someone murdering them and getting away with it would be a win all around. We'd be happy to have them gone, they'd be happy to be gone.
Still don't know what you're talking about.
Sure did. Not sure what your comment is purporting to claim.
Even worse, this is an area where there is a significant faction convinced that the truth is being covered up, much like the tobacco companies successfully did for years with the relationship between smoking and cancer. The prior success of this strategy by powerful corporate interests means that people have a justifiable lack of faith in the published science.
So give people the information, let them make their own decisions, and if they don't get cancer while the rest of us do, they can say I told you so, and the rest of us can feel like the idiot smokers with lung cancer did. Or not. Whichever outcome happens, the labeling seems like a minimally intrusive requirement.
On the possible downside, living in a non-ca state means you might have as much as a 4 year reduced life expectancy.
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa/california-life-expectancy
(and barring the likely genetically tainted state of Hawaii, you can do only 1.1 year better).
and compiler researchers concede that a competent human will outperform a compiler for the foreseeable future. so your statement about compilers is total hand-waving away of facts inconvenient to your argument.
Define competent and compiler researchers for that claim. Most compiler researchers I know think the compiler passed the capabilities of basically all human programmers a long time ago. The compiler can evaluate combinatorial options of instruction ordering for efficiency that are comfortably out of reach of the best brains in the business.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/earn
read definition 1a
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/up
read definition 1a
Earn up your money for 15 years, and retire to a cheaper location as if you had worked for 30.
If by squat, you mean thrice the average (US!) wage at the low end, then yes, computer nerds are paid squat.
I assume you were joking, but just in case:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/niggardly
I frankly don't care. He went to a church with a pastor who turned out to have some anti-white feelings. Frankly, what sane black man in this country wouldn't after what they've been through? He went to Bill Ayers house. The guy was a radical decades ago. Who fucking cares?
Anyway, the whole point of this discussion was really not about Obama, but rather the people who elected him. Has Obama himself espoused any demonstrably counterfactual crazy claims? If so, I suspect liberals will NOT reelect him.
Seriously, find me the thing that Obama himself believes, and which has been rigorously proven false, ala the birther beliefs.
Well, because the VCs were the powerful side in the original contract negotiation. I assume they had competent lawyers advise them before making multi-million-dollar investment decisions. I know the VCs who invested in my startup did. They have hugely favorable contracts that do their best to protect them from all kinds of malfeasance the startup partners could have gotten up to.
But he can sign two separate contracts:
1) giving them XX% of facebook for the vc money
2) giving them all of his assets in the event he failed to disclose anything to them in any way in contract 1.
I don't know if they actually did such contracts, but if I were making a huge investment like that, I'd certainly have done so, and I hope a competent contract lawyer would suggest it if they were my paid advisor.
Yeah, the problem is that the states don't necessarily need or want to outlaw anything or everything that the federal government can and will. It's actually somewhat like slavery: the federal government wanted to ban it, but a bunch of states did not. In that case we wound up fighting a war to settle the issue.
My point is almost entirely that I would HAVE to read up on any such thing. This message just plain ISN'T out there to any meaningful degree like it is with the right wing religious agenda.
In theory, it would have motivated him to avoid this situation. And realistically it would actually be likely to recover all the VCs investment, if not their profit.