There are just some things simulations cannot find and rare "race conditions" are on that list. Of course, it all depends on how much fidelity you build into your simulation. However, at some point you have to say "Enough! If we spend any more on simulation and test we could just build and launch multiple spacecraft." So you accept the risks and move on. Race conditions are pretty hard to find in the first place, especially if they are not deterministic and only hit you every so often.
Nobody can stop gay people from getting married now. Wasn't that the point? No, it really never was for most on your side.
You want to deny religious freedom, you want to force people to agree with you and your position. You claim to be the example of tolerance, yet you are intolerant of other's views. Welcome to being called a hypocrite, because that's what you are. You want acceptance of your view, but are unwilling to accept that people have different views from yours. It's your view, or it's wrong... Sounds EXACTLY like what you claim you are complaining about in others...
Just remember, as a matter of LAW nobody can stop gay people from getting married now in any sate. That is NOT changing. But if you persist in pushing for more, you are becoming exactly the kind of people you claim to be trying to stamp out.
True, the decision doesn't directly impact religious freedom, but, think about the things we've seen happening on this issue of late. Do you recall the business owners who where castigated for refusing to provide services to a gay wedding on religious grounds? Surely you see how this decision will ramp up this kind of arm twisting...
Where the supreme court's ruling stands and will not be changed, I can assure you that we are far from done from dealing with this issue, not because I'm unwilling to let it go, but because those who won today are not yet satisfied.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but if the debates I've had with other posters here are any indicator, it doesn't seem I am.
One of the terms here is that your submission "MUST BE THE FIRST" that specifies the successful attack...
If you don't know for sure yours was the first (and there is no way you can) it's up to United to respond or not and pony up with the miles or not. So you did all that work, proved the attack works, but you don't really know if United hasn't already validated somebody else's submission for this and paid THEM the miles you think they owe you.
Then there is the whole, how do you know they actually received it vector....
Look, you are unlikely to get anything out of United on this. Stop wining about it and move on.
I don't think it was the religious lobby that was ginning up the rancor on this issue... In fact, most of the people I know in this group really don't care what others do. Their argument was about religious liberty and having the right to object on religious grounds. HOWEVER, the people on the other side of the issue where quite militant, staged protests and took people to court at times to make their point.
How tolerant of you sir... I think you betray the real intent of your side, which is to attack religious liberty... I'd be careful what you wish for...
At the beginning of Obama's first term, Republicans had ZERO control in congress. They couldn't even say "NO!" and make it stick without help from members of the other party.
The democrats could literally pass ANYTHING their caucus would vote for without regard to what the republicans where saying or doing. So why didn't they do single payer if that's the only solution that works? Because they where afraid of the republicans getting in front of the TV cameras and causing the democrats trouble come election time? After all that's ALL the republicans could do.
So, in reality, the democrats, really fear the voters not the republicans in congress. So if you are going to blame the democrats for bending to pressure, you need to properly identify where that pressure really comes from. It's not the republicans, but the voters who are largely represented by the republicans....
How many time does it need to be said? Romney was a republican governor in a democratic state. HE didn't implement anything, but he did sign into law a bill that was authored and passed by the legislators of his state. It was a bipartisan effort in MA.
Obama care is different. It came totally from one side of the isle. It was partisan and signed by a president from the same party. PLUS, it was at the federal level, and not just at the state level.
All I can say is that their career choices apparently suck. It might be time to consider some additional education or vocational training. I hear that they are hiring in the building/construction trades...
I know that sounds harsh, but if what you are doing doesn't cut it for you, change what you are doing to something more likely to meet your goals. It's how this system works.
Problem is that most 20 somethings are not disciplined enough to keep from spending their nest egg on useless junk, cell phones, flashy cars and the like. Well that and huge unnecessary student loans...
Apologies but I did say MOST. I fully understand that there ARE people who are being responsible. However, that does NOT change what I said.
I also know what it's like to deal with huge medical bills and low wages. My wife has had some *serious* and expensive medical issues, and all I can do is say that for me, it got better over time. We struggled for years to make ends meet and with her health. So keep up the fight and there is a good chance that eventually you will land back on your feet. Just keep your priorities straight...
So we should go back to living like the Amish now? Instead of waiting?
Oh, and because you might have missed it, I'm going to quote a previous post:
As you readily admit, "We have the technology to do this" now, which is true, so as I said, it's not an emergency, not something WE must do now or else. We don't even need to develop the technology, because as you say, it exists now.
So I'm saying that we already know how to make this work (for the most part) so returning to the 1800's isn't necessary.
You can believe what you want, but the fact remains that the democrats passed this mess not the republicans. If the democrats had any better ideas, they SHOULD have put those into the bill and passed it. IF you think they bent to republican pressure and passed something they didn't like, then take it up with the democrats for not doing what they should have.
This "it's the republican's fault" idea is decidedly partisan and where I'd guess your side would like to see such tripe be considered true, it has one serious flaw. No republicans where involved in writing it, they where not allowed to offer amendments to it or even debate it before it was passed on 100% partisan votes.
Unless you are being sarcastic.... The ACA did NOT make insurance universal...Far from it. It's had a small net positive effect, but it's been a HUGE expense for the few additional covered people it produced. The 70 million target that was touted as the "uninsured" in the USA during the bill's marketing still largely exists, they don't have insurance and are not paying the fines either...
But this was about ILLGEALS, who don't file taxes, won't be fined, are NOT entitled to insurance subsidies though the ACA and are NOT getting insurance coverage anyway. They get free emergency health care just by showing up to the emergency room.
A responsibility which is used to justify a lot of utopian programs and which I believe is being stretched past the founder's intent of the general welfare clause. What part of LIMITED government gets lost on folks?
I suggest you read the federalist papers and other historical documents discussing the constitution and it's drafting. Get some background on what the framers intended... Because if today's ruling says anything, it's that the intent is the key, even if the language is imprecise...
At this point, I shall not go around the bush again.... Have a nice day, I'm done here.
Perhaps, but a month later, if she shows up in labor the delivery WILL be done without any requirement to have insurance or evidence that she has the ability to pay.
It may not be full health care, but it's health care and it's expensive and other's pay the costs for it though higher fees, which is the very thing the ACA was *supposed* to fix, but hasn't and if truth be told, can't fix.
So we find ourselves on that proverbial slippery slope, the camel's nose is in the tent etc.... If the ACA fits this argument, then where IS the line here? I wonder if there can be any more limits to government now...
Personally when we step across the "personal responsibility" line with our general welfare arguments I think we've clearly crossed into areas where we should NOT go even if the constitution permits it. Making people buy insurance is clearly past that point.
Oh well, it's a done deal for now. I just hope that the "fix" for this isn't as bad as the last "cure" that got tried and that we can pull it back from the brink...
Why yes it is... And it's dairy free, fat free and low sodium. Oh, and the plastic is BPA free as well... No animals where harmed during testing... But if you want certified organic, we cannot help you there.
Slashdot Mirror
Controlling the information of ideas
Orwell just had his year wrong....
When do we get the indelible internet?
The 1st amendment is only bullet proof with the 2nd amendment... Well that and the rest of the bill of rights....
Making it illegal to transmit data put an immediate end to software piracy. I don't see why it can't work here as well.
Hey, while we are at it, let's outlaw murder and rape too... Oh wait... What is already illegal?
Seems unlikely. There's going to be a lot of... binary data in there, surely.
They got it all from /dev/null and used compression.
There are just some things simulations cannot find and rare "race conditions" are on that list. Of course, it all depends on how much fidelity you build into your simulation. However, at some point you have to say "Enough! If we spend any more on simulation and test we could just build and launch multiple spacecraft." So you accept the risks and move on. Race conditions are pretty hard to find in the first place, especially if they are not deterministic and only hit you every so often.
Nobody can stop gay people from getting married now. Wasn't that the point? No, it really never was for most on your side.
You want to deny religious freedom, you want to force people to agree with you and your position. You claim to be the example of tolerance, yet you are intolerant of other's views. Welcome to being called a hypocrite, because that's what you are. You want acceptance of your view, but are unwilling to accept that people have different views from yours. It's your view, or it's wrong... Sounds EXACTLY like what you claim you are complaining about in others...
Just remember, as a matter of LAW nobody can stop gay people from getting married now in any sate. That is NOT changing. But if you persist in pushing for more, you are becoming exactly the kind of people you claim to be trying to stamp out.
True, the decision doesn't directly impact religious freedom, but, think about the things we've seen happening on this issue of late. Do you recall the business owners who where castigated for refusing to provide services to a gay wedding on religious grounds? Surely you see how this decision will ramp up this kind of arm twisting...
Where the supreme court's ruling stands and will not be changed, I can assure you that we are far from done from dealing with this issue, not because I'm unwilling to let it go, but because those who won today are not yet satisfied.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but if the debates I've had with other posters here are any indicator, it doesn't seem I am.
Lighten up... Your position won the day... Enjoy the victory...
Or don't, and prove my point.. (EOF)
is plaid.
Mine is paisley.. Plaid is so yesterday..
One of the terms here is that your submission "MUST BE THE FIRST" that specifies the successful attack...
If you don't know for sure yours was the first (and there is no way you can) it's up to United to respond or not and pony up with the miles or not. So you did all that work, proved the attack works, but you don't really know if United hasn't already validated somebody else's submission for this and paid THEM the miles you think they owe you.
Then there is the whole, how do you know they actually received it vector....
Look, you are unlikely to get anything out of United on this. Stop wining about it and move on.
How does it ruin anything? If you have a problem and gay marriage ruins something for you, it's YOUR fucking problem, not anyone else's.
Go fuck your sister, fucking hillbilly Yank.
Calm down there AC.. Your side won... No need to get all bent out of shape at this point.
I don't think it was the religious lobby that was ginning up the rancor on this issue... In fact, most of the people I know in this group really don't care what others do. Their argument was about religious liberty and having the right to object on religious grounds. HOWEVER, the people on the other side of the issue where quite militant, staged protests and took people to court at times to make their point.
So who is making a big deal out of this again?
How tolerant of you sir... I think you betray the real intent of your side, which is to attack religious liberty... I'd be careful what you wish for...
For frequent flyer miles? Yea, that's going to pay off.
At the beginning of Obama's first term, Republicans had ZERO control in congress. They couldn't even say "NO!" and make it stick without help from members of the other party.
The democrats could literally pass ANYTHING their caucus would vote for without regard to what the republicans where saying or doing. So why didn't they do single payer if that's the only solution that works? Because they where afraid of the republicans getting in front of the TV cameras and causing the democrats trouble come election time? After all that's ALL the republicans could do.
So, in reality, the democrats, really fear the voters not the republicans in congress. So if you are going to blame the democrats for bending to pressure, you need to properly identify where that pressure really comes from. It's not the republicans, but the voters who are largely represented by the republicans....
How many time does it need to be said? Romney was a republican governor in a democratic state. HE didn't implement anything, but he did sign into law a bill that was authored and passed by the legislators of his state. It was a bipartisan effort in MA.
Obama care is different. It came totally from one side of the isle. It was partisan and signed by a president from the same party. PLUS, it was at the federal level, and not just at the state level.
All I can say is that their career choices apparently suck. It might be time to consider some additional education or vocational training. I hear that they are hiring in the building/construction trades...
I know that sounds harsh, but if what you are doing doesn't cut it for you, change what you are doing to something more likely to meet your goals. It's how this system works.
Problem is that most 20 somethings are not disciplined enough to keep from spending their nest egg on useless junk, cell phones, flashy cars and the like. Well that and huge unnecessary student loans...
Apologies but I did say MOST. I fully understand that there ARE people who are being responsible. However, that does NOT change what I said.
I also know what it's like to deal with huge medical bills and low wages. My wife has had some *serious* and expensive medical issues, and all I can do is say that for me, it got better over time. We struggled for years to make ends meet and with her health. So keep up the fight and there is a good chance that eventually you will land back on your feet. Just keep your priorities straight...
So we should go back to living like the Amish now? Instead of waiting?
Oh, and because you might have missed it, I'm going to quote a previous post:
As you readily admit, "We have the technology to do this" now, which is true, so as I said, it's not an emergency, not something WE must do now or else. We don't even need to develop the technology, because as you say, it exists now.
So I'm saying that we already know how to make this work (for the most part) so returning to the 1800's isn't necessary.
You can believe what you want, but the fact remains that the democrats passed this mess not the republicans. If the democrats had any better ideas, they SHOULD have put those into the bill and passed it. IF you think they bent to republican pressure and passed something they didn't like, then take it up with the democrats for not doing what they should have.
This "it's the republican's fault" idea is decidedly partisan and where I'd guess your side would like to see such tripe be considered true, it has one serious flaw. No republicans where involved in writing it, they where not allowed to offer amendments to it or even debate it before it was passed on 100% partisan votes.
Democrats own this one.....End of report.
Shesh... I'll make ONE more comment...
Unless you are being sarcastic.... The ACA did NOT make insurance universal...Far from it. It's had a small net positive effect, but it's been a HUGE expense for the few additional covered people it produced. The 70 million target that was touted as the "uninsured" in the USA during the bill's marketing still largely exists, they don't have insurance and are not paying the fines either...
But this was about ILLGEALS, who don't file taxes, won't be fined, are NOT entitled to insurance subsidies though the ACA and are NOT getting insurance coverage anyway. They get free emergency health care just by showing up to the emergency room.
A responsibility which is used to justify a lot of utopian programs and which I believe is being stretched past the founder's intent of the general welfare clause. What part of LIMITED government gets lost on folks?
I suggest you read the federalist papers and other historical documents discussing the constitution and it's drafting. Get some background on what the framers intended... Because if today's ruling says anything, it's that the intent is the key, even if the language is imprecise...
At this point, I shall not go around the bush again.... Have a nice day, I'm done here.
Perhaps, but a month later, if she shows up in labor the delivery WILL be done without any requirement to have insurance or evidence that she has the ability to pay.
It may not be full health care, but it's health care and it's expensive and other's pay the costs for it though higher fees, which is the very thing the ACA was *supposed* to fix, but hasn't and if truth be told, can't fix.
So we find ourselves on that proverbial slippery slope, the camel's nose is in the tent etc.... If the ACA fits this argument, then where IS the line here? I wonder if there can be any more limits to government now...
Personally when we step across the "personal responsibility" line with our general welfare arguments I think we've clearly crossed into areas where we should NOT go even if the constitution permits it. Making people buy insurance is clearly past that point.
Oh well, it's a done deal for now. I just hope that the "fix" for this isn't as bad as the last "cure" that got tried and that we can pull it back from the brink ...
Why yes it is... And it's dairy free, fat free and low sodium. Oh, and the plastic is BPA free as well... No animals where harmed during testing... But if you want certified organic, we cannot help you there.