2) Box up the weapons on one side, transport them by ground to the other side, unload back onto the ship. I think you can drive the Panama Canal route faster then it takes a ship to go through it because cars don't have to deal with the canal locks.
To be more accurate, the Church of Scientology (California) was granted tax-exempt status in 1954, and obtained tax-exempt status nationwide in 1957.
In 1967, the Church of Scientology was stripped of it's tax-exempt status by the IRS, asserting that its activities were commercial (and not charitable or religious) and benefited L. Ron Hubbard. It did not regain tax-exempt status until 1993, which it has had since.
So, as far as it matters in the U.S., the CoS as a national organization, has had tax-exempt status (as a 501(c) organization) for 26 years out of the period spanning 1957 to 2009.
That being said, they should lose their tax-exempt status on any careful examination of their books.
But you can buy the Book of Mormon on amazon.com. Heck, they even have it for the Kindle. That's a big difference right there. If you search for scientology on amazon, a good number of the books returned are works critical of scientology, but you won't find the materials that they charge thousands of dollars up for sale there.
Another is that you can be a Mormon and not be a member of the official Mormon church. The Church of Scientology has sued groups who practice Scientology outside of the official channels. (The non-CoS Scientologists, by the way, are collectively called Free Zoners.)
Scientology is a cult and a scam. There's no two ways about it. They use and abuse copyright laws to protect their "religious" materials, which no other mainstream religion does. They have a pattern of harassment and antagonism towards critics, including attempting to frame them for criminal acts. Look up Operation Freakout on wikipedia, or Operation Snow White for a look at their attempted infiltration of, among other things, the IRS.
The difference is that Asimov had years to write more "I, Robot" stuff if he had wanted to. It's not like he just now kicked off with an unfinished manuscript or twelve that Reichert is going to finish up for posterity's sake. And it's not like Asimov can actually use any of the money this will earn his estate. (Unless of course, they're going to use the money to fund re-animation procedures.)
Do the Mormons or the Freemasons use trade secret and copyright laws against people who practice the same beliefs but aren't part of their organization? (I.e. does the Church of Latter Day Saints sue people who practice the Mormon religion and aren't part of the LDS?)
The Church of Scientology does. They've used trade secret and copyright laws against "Free Zone" Scientologists (people who practice Scientology who aren't affiliated with the CoS.)
Of course, I'm also pretty sure that the Church of Latter Day Saints or the Freemasons haven't attempted to infiltrate the IRS and other government agencies (Operation Snow White), or used illegal tactics to smear their opponents (Operation Freakout, just to name one).
Hey.... that there could be why some of us don't consider it a religion.
There are major difference between the Church of Scientology and other major religions. Yes, any major religion has detractors. Yes, any major religion almost certainly has things in their history that they are not proud of today.
However...
Name me another major religion that hides it's religious documents under the excuse of them being trade secrets and copyrighted. *cricket noises* That's what I thought. Any publishing house in the world could publish the Bible. Any publishing house in the world could publish the Qu'ran. Or the Talmud. Not so with the Church of Scientology.
Go into any church, or mosque or temple... if you ask, you can probably get a copy of the Bible, or the Qu'ran or the Talmud for free. Not so with the Church of Scientology. Show me another mainstream religion that hides their book of faith from non-believers/non-practitioners. *cricket noises* That's what I thought.
The Catholic Church does not claim to hold exclusive rights over practicing Christianity. Orthodox Judaism does not claim to hold exclusive rights to practicing their faith. Shi'a Islam does not say that Sunni Islam has no rights to exist. (Okay, yes, some of the more extremist members of them do, but not the faith as a whole.) The Church of Scientology? They claim that they alone can properly control and disseminate the knowledge of Scientology. They regularly used copyright and trade mark laws against "Free Zone Scientologists" (Scientologists who practice the philosophy of Scientolgy outside of any affiliation with the Church of Scientology.)
In most churches, temples, and mosques, you can join study groups for free to learn more about that faith. In the Church of Scientology, you have to pay to learn more about their beliefs. It is impossible to access the higher levels of Scientology without taking auditing and training courses that can run thousands of dollars.
The Church of Scientology also has a history of condemning and slandering ex-members and critics, as well as trying to discredit them through illegal tactics. Look up "Operation Freakout" or "Operation Snow White" on wikipedia for some examples. Or read the wikipedia entry for Gabe Cazares, former mayor of Clearwater, Florida. The Church of Scientology was planning on faking a hit-and-run accident in order to smear him.
I'm not saying that other mainstream religions are 100% sweetness and light. They've made mistakes, and they've owned up to some of them. But the Church of Scientology ruins lives. It hides behind a facade of religion and spirituality and uses the law as a truncheon when it wants to and ignores it when it doesn't suit their purposes.
Sorry, as far as states and the feds are concerned, a "marriage" before a judge rather then some arbitrary religious authority is a marriage (note lack of quotes). It's the same thing as far as the law is concerned.
But hey, since you seem determined to completely associate marriage with religion... you do realize that I, having gone to a website and clicked a link (well, there was a little more to it then that), am a minister in the Universal Life Church and can therefore marry people. Doesn't matter that I have all the religious training of a stunned grapefruit. By your reasoning, I can solemnly authorize and validate marriages.
So, yeah, you're a little loopy in assuming that religion automatically and unilaterally validates marriage.
Look at the logos, though. It would be one thing if the Woolworth's logo was silver, or looked like an apple with a bite out of it. It's neither. It's bright fucking green. It also looks like a stylized lower case 'w', as well as maybe looking like an apple. But honestly, are any Apple-fanboys going to confuse the two? No. Is anyone going to mistakenly assume that the store labeled "Woolworth's" is really an Apple store in disguise? No. Is anyone going to go to the Woolworth's web-page and wonder "Where the fuck are the iTunes downloads?". No. No. A thousand times no.
There's "defend the trademark" and then there's "rampant corporate paranoia".
Dell has always amazed me with the level of stupidity they exhibit when it comes to customer service. When I got my first Dell waaay back when, I could order the computer online, customize it however much I needed (within the normal restrictions Dell imposes), and so forth.
But could I make my monthly payments online? Why no. I called customer service to ask them why this was the case, and I was told that they just weren't set up for it. For all I know, they may have it now. My most recent computer, I just outright bought, rather then pay monthly installments.
Why, you're right... the Suez war was completely started by Israel. Britain and France weren't involved in it at all. Oh wait, they were. Egypt didn't foment the problem at all by seizing Israel-bound cargo ships traveling through the Suez canal. Oh wait, they did. And Egypt didn't further foment the problem by nationalizing the Canal in 1956. OH WAIT, THEY DID. Point of fact, Britain and France asked for Israel to assist in the Suez Crisis, not the other way around. Yes, their intentions were to start a duplicitous war between Israel and Egypt with the end goal of making the Suez Canal open again, but saying Israel started it is as both true and false as saying that there are three grains of sand on the beach.
The Six-Day war was a direct result of the Suez Crisis, and Egypt wasn't planning on playing patty-cake with the troops and tanks that they had massed on the Egypt-Israel border.
And so on. As with most wars, you cannot just point to one event and say "this was the sole cause of the war".
Because AT&T wouldn't be trying to confuse the issue, would they?
Here's a little head's up. Six Republican Senators (at least) are co-sponsoring a bill that would prohibit the FCC from implementing it's newly announced Net Neutrality policy. One of those Senators is Jim DeMint, out of South Carolina.
How much has AT&T put into DeMint's 2010 re-election campaign so far? Why... over $63,000 (in individual donations and PAC contributions). AT&T is, in fact, the second-highest donater of funds to DeMint's 2010 election campaign, according to this lovely summary at Open Secrets. Comcast is also in the top 20.
The other sponsors of the bill, Kailey Bay Hutchison (R-TX), Sam Brownback (R-KS), John Ensign (R-NV), John Thune (R-SD), and David Vitter (R-LA) have also received nice stacks of cash for their 2010 campaigns from AT&T, and no doubt other telcos.
I e-mailed DeMint about a week ago, as I am ostensibly one of his constituents, asking him why he was opposed to Net Neutrality. I did not receive an answer, not even a canned response from his staff. What a shock.
Let's say I'm at an SEC game. I take out my cell phone. Maybe because it rang, maybe because I want to text someone, maybe because I don't have a watch and I want to see what time it is. How can anyone tell, without looking over my shoulder, to see what I'm doing?
Maybe I'm texting, but it's completely unrelated to the game I'm attending. Maybe I'm taking a picture of of $10 hot-dog. Maybe (horrors!) I'm violating the rules that they are trying to enforce.
How can anyone tell?
Multiply that times (potentially) every person in attendance. What is stadium security going to do? Throw out everyone who pulls out a cell phone? Arrest anyone who takes a picture?
By cracky, you may be on to something there. You find something "fun" or "not fun". Perhaps if game companies produced a wide range of games, so that they would have a broader base of games that people find "fun", they would sell more games overall.
Why, it will be revolutionary! Imagine, not all games would be Rock Band! You might have games based upon the American version of football, or simulations of science-fiction warfare against alien races, or dare I hope... games wherein a stocky Italian water and sewage maintenance worker solves a variety of problems for his viewed from afar love, a lovelorn scion of royalty.
And in those places, there are also government infrastructures to make sure that the slot machines and the roulette wheels and everything else is on the up-and-up. There are regulations in play saying what the tax cut to the local, state, and federal governments are.
This guy was not paying taxes on this income. That tends to irk Uncle Sam just a wee bit. (Also, you may recall, tax evasion is how they brought down Capone.) Plus, because tax is based upon the business's income, which they were not reporting, there was the possibility that it was being used to launder money. (Hence the RICO act charges against them.)
No, but tax evasion was and is. It doesn't matter that they were based in Costa Rica... the fact that they were doing business in the United States means that Uncle Sugar wants his cut. Don't give Uncle Sugar his cut, and things get nasty.
It's wishful thinking. The recidivism under "Sheriff Joe" isn't substantially lower then under the previous Sheriff. Plus, you have the fact that he's focusing so much on arresting illegal immigrants, that it's actually affecting how well they are working against other crimes.
I'm American, I only work about 38 hours a week (okay, strike that.... I'm at work for 38 hours a week, but I have barely had three hours of work a day for the last several weeks), and I have about five weeks of vacation time built up.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Is there a lot of piracy on the Panama Canal?
2) Box up the weapons on one side, transport them by ground to the other side, unload back onto the ship. I think you can drive the Panama Canal route faster then it takes a ship to go through it because cars don't have to deal with the canal locks.
The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009?
Man, he's never going to get anywhere with that unless he renames it have a snazzy acronym.
Do you also say Froaderick?
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
To be more accurate, the Church of Scientology (California) was granted tax-exempt status in 1954, and obtained tax-exempt status nationwide in 1957.
In 1967, the Church of Scientology was stripped of it's tax-exempt status by the IRS, asserting that its activities were commercial (and not charitable or religious) and benefited L. Ron Hubbard. It did not regain tax-exempt status until 1993, which it has had since.
So, as far as it matters in the U.S., the CoS as a national organization, has had tax-exempt status (as a 501(c) organization) for 26 years out of the period spanning 1957 to 2009.
That being said, they should lose their tax-exempt status on any careful examination of their books.
But you can buy the Book of Mormon on amazon.com. Heck, they even have it for the Kindle. That's a big difference right there. If you search for scientology on amazon, a good number of the books returned are works critical of scientology, but you won't find the materials that they charge thousands of dollars up for sale there.
Another is that you can be a Mormon and not be a member of the official Mormon church. The Church of Scientology has sued groups who practice Scientology outside of the official channels. (The non-CoS Scientologists, by the way, are collectively called Free Zoners.)
Scientology is a cult and a scam. There's no two ways about it. They use and abuse copyright laws to protect their "religious" materials, which no other mainstream religion does. They have a pattern of harassment and antagonism towards critics, including attempting to frame them for criminal acts. Look up Operation Freakout on wikipedia, or Operation Snow White for a look at their attempted infiltration of, among other things, the IRS.
The difference is that Asimov had years to write more "I, Robot" stuff if he had wanted to. It's not like he just now kicked off with an unfinished manuscript or twelve that Reichert is going to finish up for posterity's sake. And it's not like Asimov can actually use any of the money this will earn his estate. (Unless of course, they're going to use the money to fund re-animation procedures.)
Do the Mormons or the Freemasons use trade secret and copyright laws against people who practice the same beliefs but aren't part of their organization? (I.e. does the Church of Latter Day Saints sue people who practice the Mormon religion and aren't part of the LDS?)
The Church of Scientology does. They've used trade secret and copyright laws against "Free Zone" Scientologists (people who practice Scientology who aren't affiliated with the CoS.)
Of course, I'm also pretty sure that the Church of Latter Day Saints or the Freemasons haven't attempted to infiltrate the IRS and other government agencies (Operation Snow White), or used illegal tactics to smear their opponents (Operation Freakout, just to name one).
Hey.... that there could be why some of us don't consider it a religion.
There are major difference between the Church of Scientology and other major religions. Yes, any major religion has detractors. Yes, any major religion almost certainly has things in their history that they are not proud of today.
However...
Name me another major religion that hides it's religious documents under the excuse of them being trade secrets and copyrighted. *cricket noises* That's what I thought. Any publishing house in the world could publish the Bible. Any publishing house in the world could publish the Qu'ran. Or the Talmud. Not so with the Church of Scientology.
Go into any church, or mosque or temple... if you ask, you can probably get a copy of the Bible, or the Qu'ran or the Talmud for free. Not so with the Church of Scientology. Show me another mainstream religion that hides their book of faith from non-believers/non-practitioners. *cricket noises* That's what I thought.
The Catholic Church does not claim to hold exclusive rights over practicing Christianity. Orthodox Judaism does not claim to hold exclusive rights to practicing their faith. Shi'a Islam does not say that Sunni Islam has no rights to exist. (Okay, yes, some of the more extremist members of them do, but not the faith as a whole.) The Church of Scientology? They claim that they alone can properly control and disseminate the knowledge of Scientology. They regularly used copyright and trade mark laws against "Free Zone Scientologists" (Scientologists who practice the philosophy of Scientolgy outside of any affiliation with the Church of Scientology.)
In most churches, temples, and mosques, you can join study groups for free to learn more about that faith. In the Church of Scientology, you have to pay to learn more about their beliefs. It is impossible to access the higher levels of Scientology without taking auditing and training courses that can run thousands of dollars.
The Church of Scientology also has a history of condemning and slandering ex-members and critics, as well as trying to discredit them through illegal tactics. Look up "Operation Freakout" or "Operation Snow White" on wikipedia for some examples. Or read the wikipedia entry for Gabe Cazares, former mayor of Clearwater, Florida. The Church of Scientology was planning on faking a hit-and-run accident in order to smear him.
I'm not saying that other mainstream religions are 100% sweetness and light. They've made mistakes, and they've owned up to some of them. But the Church of Scientology ruins lives. It hides behind a facade of religion and spirituality and uses the law as a truncheon when it wants to and ignores it when it doesn't suit their purposes.
Sorry, as far as states and the feds are concerned, a "marriage" before a judge rather then some arbitrary religious authority is a marriage (note lack of quotes). It's the same thing as far as the law is concerned.
But hey, since you seem determined to completely associate marriage with religion... you do realize that I, having gone to a website and clicked a link (well, there was a little more to it then that), am a minister in the Universal Life Church and can therefore marry people. Doesn't matter that I have all the religious training of a stunned grapefruit. By your reasoning, I can solemnly authorize and validate marriages.
So, yeah, you're a little loopy in assuming that religion automatically and unilaterally validates marriage.
Why Congress? Probably due to interstate commerce laws.
Look at the logos, though. It would be one thing if the Woolworth's logo was silver, or looked like an apple with a bite out of it. It's neither. It's bright fucking green. It also looks like a stylized lower case 'w', as well as maybe looking like an apple. But honestly, are any Apple-fanboys going to confuse the two? No. Is anyone going to mistakenly assume that the store labeled "Woolworth's" is really an Apple store in disguise? No. Is anyone going to go to the Woolworth's web-page and wonder "Where the fuck are the iTunes downloads?". No. No. A thousand times no.
There's "defend the trademark" and then there's "rampant corporate paranoia".
Dell has always amazed me with the level of stupidity they exhibit when it comes to customer service. When I got my first Dell waaay back when, I could order the computer online, customize it however much I needed (within the normal restrictions Dell imposes), and so forth.
But could I make my monthly payments online? Why no. I called customer service to ask them why this was the case, and I was told that they just weren't set up for it. For all I know, they may have it now. My most recent computer, I just outright bought, rather then pay monthly installments.
Why, you're right... the Suez war was completely started by Israel. Britain and France weren't involved in it at all. Oh wait, they were. Egypt didn't foment the problem at all by seizing Israel-bound cargo ships traveling through the Suez canal. Oh wait, they did. And Egypt didn't further foment the problem by nationalizing the Canal in 1956. OH WAIT, THEY DID. Point of fact, Britain and France asked for Israel to assist in the Suez Crisis, not the other way around. Yes, their intentions were to start a duplicitous war between Israel and Egypt with the end goal of making the Suez Canal open again, but saying Israel started it is as both true and false as saying that there are three grains of sand on the beach.
The Six-Day war was a direct result of the Suez Crisis, and Egypt wasn't planning on playing patty-cake with the troops and tanks that they had massed on the Egypt-Israel border.
And so on. As with most wars, you cannot just point to one event and say "this was the sole cause of the war".
Because their leadership makes statements to the effect that Israel should be wiped off of the map?
Because AT&T wouldn't be trying to confuse the issue, would they?
Here's a little head's up. Six Republican Senators (at least) are co-sponsoring a bill that would prohibit the FCC from implementing it's newly announced Net Neutrality policy. One of those Senators is Jim DeMint, out of South Carolina.
How much has AT&T put into DeMint's 2010 re-election campaign so far? Why... over $63,000 (in individual donations and PAC contributions). AT&T is, in fact, the second-highest donater of funds to DeMint's 2010 election campaign, according to this lovely summary at Open Secrets. Comcast is also in the top 20.
The other sponsors of the bill, Kailey Bay Hutchison (R-TX), Sam Brownback (R-KS), John Ensign (R-NV), John Thune (R-SD), and David Vitter (R-LA) have also received nice stacks of cash for their 2010 campaigns from AT&T, and no doubt other telcos.
I e-mailed DeMint about a week ago, as I am ostensibly one of his constituents, asking him why he was opposed to Net Neutrality. I did not receive an answer, not even a canned response from his staff. What a shock.
That's better then most of the names we want to call them.
Of course it's impossible to enforce.
Let's say I'm at an SEC game. I take out my cell phone. Maybe because it rang, maybe because I want to text someone, maybe because I don't have a watch and I want to see what time it is. How can anyone tell, without looking over my shoulder, to see what I'm doing?
Maybe I'm texting, but it's completely unrelated to the game I'm attending.
Maybe I'm taking a picture of of $10 hot-dog.
Maybe (horrors!) I'm violating the rules that they are trying to enforce.
How can anyone tell?
Multiply that times (potentially) every person in attendance. What is stadium security going to do? Throw out everyone who pulls out a cell phone? Arrest anyone who takes a picture?
Yes, because, you know, we're going to have to drop atom bombs on those moon Nazis.
Of course, our other option is pelting them with hippies. Apparently, you're volunteering for that choice.
By cracky, you may be on to something there. You find something "fun" or "not fun". Perhaps if game companies produced a wide range of games, so that they would have a broader base of games that people find "fun", they would sell more games overall.
Why, it will be revolutionary! Imagine, not all games would be Rock Band! You might have games based upon the American version of football, or simulations of science-fiction warfare against alien races, or dare I hope... games wherein a stocky Italian water and sewage maintenance worker solves a variety of problems for his viewed from afar love, a lovelorn scion of royalty.
And in those places, there are also government infrastructures to make sure that the slot machines and the roulette wheels and everything else is on the up-and-up. There are regulations in play saying what the tax cut to the local, state, and federal governments are.
This guy was not paying taxes on this income. That tends to irk Uncle Sam just a wee bit. (Also, you may recall, tax evasion is how they brought down Capone.) Plus, because tax is based upon the business's income, which they were not reporting, there was the possibility that it was being used to launder money. (Hence the RICO act charges against them.)
No, but tax evasion was and is. It doesn't matter that they were based in Costa Rica... the fact that they were doing business in the United States means that Uncle Sugar wants his cut. Don't give Uncle Sugar his cut, and things get nasty.
Ever hear of tax evasion?
The IRS doesn't like it when you have business in the United States and then don't pay taxes on it. Hell, tax evasion is how they got Capone.
It's wishful thinking. The recidivism under "Sheriff Joe" isn't substantially lower then under the previous Sheriff. Plus, you have the fact that he's focusing so much on arresting illegal immigrants, that it's actually affecting how well they are working against other crimes.
I'm American, I only work about 38 hours a week (okay, strike that.... I'm at work for 38 hours a week, but I have barely had three hours of work a day for the last several weeks), and I have about five weeks of vacation time built up.
Am I doing it wrong too?