it has nothing to do with Libertarians and everything to do with everyone calling themselves one because they want to distinguish themselves for "those other republicans". they dont actually know what a libertarian stance is, but they can see and hear the dissonance in the various stances of the republican party, and so theyre trying ot distance themselves, and that's a convenient label, just like calling yourself an "independent" 10 years ago was.
i repeat: most of them are NOT libertarians. so continuing to rag on libertarians is silly.
its like if i started calling myself a democrat liberal and ran around acting like the opposite. would you rag on liberalism, or would you recognize that i simply dont have a fing clue and picked a completely inappropriate label?
hate is a strong word, but the concept is sound. their kind of ignorance cannot be tolerated, and their demand for tolerance of themselves is just wrong on so many levels. (and personal experience makes it hard for me to not hate them)
i dont care what proponents who stand to make money on it have to say. what does a scientest say about it? cause that statistic is quite thouroughly laughable without anything to back it.
also, no scientist would claim "that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century" based off a one year fluke involving something has complicated and multi-factored as sea ice formation after a multiple year trend of hotter and hotter average temps. however that wont stop psuedoscientists and the flat earth society from having a field day with this one.
no one is saying men dont like women's chests. he is saying however most of us arent so stupid as to come up with this sort of idea, and then talk about it in front of a professional audience (which presumably includes women) and also 9 year old girl ! most of us have better sense than that and self censor nearly every moment of every day because we're considerate of who is around us.
oh come on. you know what he means without trying to inject the true scotsman fallacy into a situation that doesnt involve it. you simply have to know your audience, and the fact they thought that was appropriate in such an audience, ie including a 9 year old girl, shows their lack of common sense.
i have a buddy i cut up with regularly. we both can joke about almsot anything with each other, almost nothing is off limits. but there is no way in hell i would tell those jokes to my little girl or even my wife.
There are people out there that HATE black people and think they should all be shot. It is intolerance in the extreme. And it is morally wrong.
It is NOT intolerant to hate such people, or rather it is not WRONG to do so, nor is it wrong to not tolerate their presence/existence. and the notion that it is, is a poorly thought out load of crap thats only slightly above saying "i know you are but what am i?".
Their judgement is one of ignroance based on racism and evil. My judgement is one of morality based on a stance against evil, and in support of freedom (to exist, assocaite, etc etc). The difference is the nature and purpose of the intolerance.
It does sound like saying "intolerance of intolerance is not intolerance", but the point is that you are trying to conflate one evil intolerance with another completely justified intolerance. the first cannot be allowed in a civilized and free society, and therefore the second is required in a civilized and free society.
well, again, to be fair, i wasnt getting a renewel. i was getting my intial state license and registrations (still fair new to the place). what ticked me off the worst was i took the day off frm work, cause i was told how bad it was...it was about 30 minutes before they were gonna close. they were just.. about.. to get to my number. they sent everyone home, said this is it for the day. so it took two of my ten sick days to get my license.
the cynical/sarcastic part of me says "Oh wow, look how useful the NSA is being..." or "Number of Americans spied on to capture this intelligence: 350,000,000."
But in all seriousness, this IS the sort of thing the NSA is supposed to discover. they just dont need to spy on 100% of Americans 100% of the time to do it. So good on them, job well done.
Now stop violating the rights of your own citizens.
no, im actually being unfair. they know it exists. it just doesnt matter because they privatized the DMV.
so first you got the Dept of Public Safetyand sit in line for 8 hours....if they see you at all. they literally cut off the line ~9am (an hour after they open) and tell anyone past that point to go home, they got all theyll handle today. anyway, IF they see you, they ask you buncha questions, check your eyesight...take your picture...fingerprint...address...proff residence...and then give you nothing, but a small stamped piece of paper with a number on it.
THEN you got the private tag agency. and wait in line again. for a few more hours. they're the ones still using TRS-80s (cause you know, they still work and upgrading is expensive...they didnt get to be lowest bidder for nothing you know!). and when THEY finally get around to seeing you...first you have to pay them (ya, you dont pay the state, you pay the contractor). and then they take your piece of paper, pull up the number, and print an ID card...which takes about another hour using their first gen (possibly even THE protoype) id card printer.
no, actually i was thinking remove the plates entirely. if you have an RFID its not really needed. as for reading it for accident purposes, the VIN is already on the vehicle, write that down. OR, sinec the toll stickers we get here are about a 2x2" plasticized white paper square (with the chip about a 1/2" square in the center), just print a serial number on there and you get the equivalent of a plate number for accident purposes. or cars can have readers incorporated into "black boxes", that report "1205Z: Impact with VIN: 12f923289819sas2141". for cops checking for expired "tags", the RFID is your tag, and the cop could check in seconds to see if youre legal or not.
and using an RFID avoids any issues of power sources, hacking the electronic plate (hacking the dmv being a seperate issue, that already exists as a threat vector), accidents destroying the electronic plate, etc.
basiaclly i question the need to design an electronic plate at all when you can just summarily replace plates entirely with existing tech already common on the roads, if htey want to go this route. though i personally would just as well keep the existing plates.
I dont think my state government has even discovered the internet yet. the DMV office is still using TRS-80 computers in the registration section. and they're the newest equipment in the place.
I understand the chemistry. your chemsitry analysis is correct on teh face of it. But, similar to the other guy, something is at work when I drink soda. Its purely anecdotal, and i dont know the mechanism at play, but i dont drink sodas because i get heartburn directly afterword, even if the soda was all I had. simiarly i no longer enjoy tomato sauces for same reason, stomach no likey tomata sauces, or other acidic foods.
(well thats not strictly true..-I- still enjoy my italian...i just come prepared with a bucket of Tums before commencing the gorging)
they are naturally existing because they are by definition necessary and required to be a free man. when they are lacking or absent or taken away you are no longer free. that is why they are natural.
And the bill of rights is not a list of the ONLY rights we have. rememeber, the founders went back and forth over even having it.
Some worried that people would do as you are, and think its a list of hte only rights we have and that they are granted by the governement, not inehrent, and in so doing you negate the entire concept of government as an abstract of the people and turn it into a seperate entity from the people. the other side.
other worried that without some minimum set of rights spelled out in concrete it would be far too easy to violate what people at that time considered natural and inalienable rights, to take them away, change them, interpret them unjustly, etc.
the bill of rights as it came to be, and including the 9th and 10th amendemtns, was a compromise: it spells out some specific rights, sets them in stone, but at the same time notes that it is not an exhaustive or complete list of ALL the rights of a free man.
(and somehow your uniformed and ignorant diatribe turned into an attack on religion, as if the USC is a religious document...what's up with that?)
mod up. in other words, in layman's terms, it should be read as "because a standing army is a needful evil for the nation to protect itself from outside threats, the people shall have the right to defense from that same standing standing army should it become necessary (again)."
they did get sued. and people still do it (sue) too, though the courts have held that there's basically a threshold value above which its essentially an airborne highway and a public commodity.
but below that value though, and especially if its close enough to cause problems to the land owner (such as an ultralight flying right above a chicken coup, or scattering a cattle herd), there can be legal repercussions.
Slashdot Mirror
it has nothing to do with Libertarians and everything to do with everyone calling themselves one because they want to distinguish themselves for "those other republicans". they dont actually know what a libertarian stance is, but they can see and hear the dissonance in the various stances of the republican party, and so theyre trying ot distance themselves, and that's a convenient label, just like calling yourself an "independent" 10 years ago was.
i repeat: most of them are NOT libertarians. so continuing to rag on libertarians is silly.
its like if i started calling myself a democrat liberal and ran around acting like the opposite. would you rag on liberalism, or would you recognize that i simply dont have a fing clue and picked a completely inappropriate label?
its written as a tax.
read the bill.
hate is a strong word, but the concept is sound. their kind of ignorance cannot be tolerated, and their demand for tolerance of themselves is just wrong on so many levels. (and personal experience makes it hard for me to not hate them)
i dont care what proponents who stand to make money on it have to say.
what does a scientest say about it? cause that statistic is quite thouroughly laughable without anything to back it.
also, no scientist would claim "that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century" based off a one year fluke involving something has complicated and multi-factored as sea ice formation after a multiple year trend of hotter and hotter average temps. however that wont stop psuedoscientists and the flat earth society from having a field day with this one.
no one is saying men dont like women's chests.
he is saying however most of us arent so stupid as to come up with this sort of idea, and then talk about it in front of a professional audience (which presumably includes women) and also 9 year old girl ! most of us have better sense than that and self censor nearly every moment of every day because we're considerate of who is around us.
oh come on. you know what he means without trying to inject the true scotsman fallacy into a situation that doesnt involve it.
you simply have to know your audience, and the fact they thought that was appropriate in such an audience, ie including a 9 year old girl, shows their lack of common sense.
i have a buddy i cut up with regularly.
we both can joke about almsot anything with each other, almost nothing is off limits.
but there is no way in hell i would tell those jokes to my little girl or even my wife.
There are people out there that HATE black people and think they should all be shot.
It is intolerance in the extreme.
And it is morally wrong.
It is NOT intolerant to hate such people, or rather it is not WRONG to do so, nor is it wrong to not tolerate their presence/existence.
and the notion that it is, is a poorly thought out load of crap thats only slightly above saying "i know you are but what am i?".
Their judgement is one of ignroance based on racism and evil.
My judgement is one of morality based on a stance against evil, and in support of freedom (to exist, assocaite, etc etc).
The difference is the nature and purpose of the intolerance.
It does sound like saying "intolerance of intolerance is not intolerance",
but the point is that you are trying to conflate one evil intolerance with another completely justified intolerance.
the first cannot be allowed in a civilized and free society, and therefore the second is required in a civilized and free society.
well, again, to be fair, i wasnt getting a renewel. i was getting my intial state license and registrations (still fair new to the place). .. about .. to get to my number. they sent everyone home, said this is it for the day. so it took two of my ten sick days to get my license.
what ticked me off the worst was i took the day off frm work, cause i was told how bad it was...it was about 30 minutes before they were gonna close. they were just
the cynical/sarcastic part of me says "Oh wow, look how useful the NSA is being..."
or "Number of Americans spied on to capture this intelligence: 350,000,000."
But in all seriousness, this IS the sort of thing the NSA is supposed to discover.
they just dont need to spy on 100% of Americans 100% of the time to do it.
So good on them, job well done.
Now stop violating the rights of your own citizens.
Lead with your left.
His gaurd is weak on that side.
And he's got a glass jaw, so one good pop there, and down he'll go.
(actually you know, i think this would have been funnier with the other trope, "The Fix Is In" ... )
that what i said. use the RFID tags we use for automatic toll roads. if we got those out here in bumphuc no where i know they got them out in Cali.
no, im actually being unfair.
they know it exists.
it just doesnt matter because they privatized the DMV.
so first you got the Dept of Public Safetyand sit in line for 8 hours....if they see you at all. they literally cut off the line ~9am (an hour after they open) and tell anyone past that point to go home, they got all theyll handle today. anyway, IF they see you, they ask you buncha questions, check your eyesight...take your picture...fingerprint...address...proff residence...and then give you nothing, but a small stamped piece of paper with a number on it.
THEN you got the private tag agency. and wait in line again. for a few more hours. they're the ones still using TRS-80s (cause you know, they still work and upgrading is expensive...they didnt get to be lowest bidder for nothing you know!). and when THEY finally get around to seeing you...first you have to pay them (ya, you dont pay the state, you pay the contractor). and then they take your piece of paper, pull up the number, and print an ID card...which takes about another hour using their first gen (possibly even THE protoype) id card printer.
no, actually i was thinking remove the plates entirely.
if you have an RFID its not really needed. as for reading it for accident purposes, the VIN is already on the vehicle, write that down. OR, sinec the toll stickers we get here are about a 2x2" plasticized white paper square (with the chip about a 1/2" square in the center), just print a serial number on there and you get the equivalent of a plate number for accident purposes. or cars can have readers incorporated into "black boxes", that report "1205Z: Impact with VIN: 12f923289819sas2141". for cops checking for expired "tags", the RFID is your tag, and the cop could check in seconds to see if youre legal or not.
and using an RFID avoids any issues of power sources, hacking the electronic plate (hacking the dmv being a seperate issue, that already exists as a threat vector), accidents destroying the electronic plate, etc.
basiaclly i question the need to design an electronic plate at all when you can just summarily replace plates entirely with existing tech already common on the roads, if htey want to go this route. though i personally would just as well keep the existing plates.
I dont think my state government has even discovered the internet yet.
the DMV office is still using TRS-80 computers in the registration section.
and they're the newest equipment in the place.
Now we know you're lying.
No one drinks Dr Pepper Ten.
That *hit is nasty.
I understand the chemistry. your chemsitry analysis is correct on teh face of it. But, similar to the other guy, something is at work when I drink soda.
Its purely anecdotal, and i dont know the mechanism at play, but i dont drink sodas because i get heartburn directly afterword, even if the soda was all I had.
simiarly i no longer enjoy tomato sauces for same reason, stomach no likey tomata sauces, or other acidic foods.
(well thats not strictly true..-I- still enjoy my italian...i just come prepared with a bucket of Tums before commencing the gorging)
why even make it a plate? who needs to innovate?
we've had electronic tolls tickers on our windshields (RFIDs) for years.
just use those.
no more unreadable plates. no more faded or peeling stickers.
just point the scanner at a car to get its license and registration.
no more visits to Hell, I mean, the DMV.
Just renew online or over the phone.
who the hell rated your diarhea of the mouth Insightful??
Only two people really know what happened, one of them is dead, and no one really cares anyway except as a proxy in a political debate.
Quoted FTMFT, and bolded for emphasis.
Still better than looking at Meg Ryan.
probably not, avgas is leaded.
they are naturally existing because they are by definition necessary and required to be a free man.
when they are lacking or absent or taken away you are no longer free.
that is why they are natural.
And the bill of rights is not a list of the ONLY rights we have. rememeber, the founders went back and forth over even having it.
Some worried that people would do as you are, and think its a list of hte only rights we have and that they are granted by the governement, not inehrent, and in so doing you negate the entire concept of government as an abstract of the people and turn it into a seperate entity from the people. the other side.
other worried that without some minimum set of rights spelled out in concrete it would be far too easy to violate what people at that time considered natural and inalienable rights, to take them away, change them, interpret them unjustly, etc.
the bill of rights as it came to be, and including the 9th and 10th amendemtns, was a compromise: it spells out some specific rights, sets them in stone, but at the same time notes that it is not an exhaustive or complete list of ALL the rights of a free man.
(and somehow your uniformed and ignorant diatribe turned into an attack on religion, as if the USC is a religious document...what's up with that?)
mod up.
in other words, in layman's terms, it should be read as "because a standing army is a needful evil for the nation to protect itself from outside threats, the people shall have the right to defense from that same standing standing army should it become necessary (again)."
they did get sued. and people still do it (sue) too, though the courts have held that there's basically a threshold value above which its essentially an airborne highway and a public commodity.
but below that value though, and especially if its close enough to cause problems to the land owner (such as an ultralight flying right above a chicken coup, or scattering a cattle herd), there can be legal repercussions.