There's a difference. When paving roads you're only going to use one sort of road surface (blacktop asphalt isn't the only option), not 29 different types.
If not, I suggest you start training right now because the utilities will not be able to keep up with the demand for the installation of home charging stations and, under the NEC, a licensed electrician is an approved person for installing a home charging station. (:
Residential charging stations are already covered in the National Electric Code, fwiw (and the Code is considered law, with state/local overrides for specific provisions (with the approval of the AHJ)).
I think when I finish my training as an electrician, I will be getting with auto dealers in my state to directly market my services to those buying an electric car as they will most likely be in need of a charging station. (:
Obviously you were never a kid either. Toys and presents mean a _lot_ to kids. Your kid may appreciate a hug and kind word, but there is no real substitute for a present.
If the presents mean that much more to any child we may have, then I've failed my child. Period.
I remember being a kid and it wasn't about the presents for me (which is probably good because we weren't well off). I loved getting them, but like another poster: I don't remember a single one. I remember time spent with my paternal grandparents (my grandfather died in 1996). I remember time spent with my maternal grandmother (my maternal grandfather died from alcoholism around the time I was born). I remember time spent with my parents, sister, aunts, uncles and cousins.
All of this belies what the whole meaning for the season is, anyway. It's about the birth of Christ (the Christ in Christmas), while Easter is about His death (and not some stupid bunny that hides hard-boiled chicken eggs) and the fulfillment of prophecy through His death.
So yeah, if you're buying into the consumerism, and then using our the selfishness of a child to support it, you're celebrating the wrong thing and you've failed your child. I don't care if you don't agree with me. The truth is the truth.
Christmas isn't about presents. It isn't about who gets the most stuff. It's about the birth of a savior this world desperately needs but continues to reject. It's about family and love. The presents don't even come close to filling that role. They're a cheap and easy alternative to the true meaning of Christmas (Matthew 1:18-24).
I'll probably be modded into oblivion for the next couple of weeks, but whatever.
You've bought so fully into the lie of consumerism that you can't see anything else as being fulfilling for you or your family. That's a failure on society, sir; and yes, you and your wife for going along with it. Sorry, but I count that as an epic failure. One to be avoided on my part.
If that's what makes you and your family happy, so be it, but do not think for one moment that it's right to feed that mentality.
When Alzheimer's kicks in you won't even remember what they are, much less why you have them. The only joy you will get is the day-to-day seeing of something "new". At that point, nothing will really matter as you'll just be existing.
Then you've already indoctorinated your kids to the consumerist side of Christmas. There is plenty to be excited about without expensive presents. Teach your kids to enjoy the finer things in life (like each other's company) more than some toy.
You're right, I'm not a parent, but if I were, I hope my wife and I would be able to celebrate Christmas in some truly meaningful way. (:
Personally I do like the premise the OP advances. Instead of getting more stuff of little to no real value, they are making memories that will last longer than any item made of fiber, metal, or inorganic hydrocarbon compounds. By putting real thought and care into their choice for presents, they are retaining a sense of humanity that today's society dearly lacks.
1) FedEx is, as far as I know, the only major carrier that handles radioactive material. It doesn't go in their regular package delivery system; they have a separate division that handles it (and biohazards, poisons, explosives, and things like that). See: http://www.fedex.com/us/services/customcritical/specialty/hazardous/index.html
2) No delivery service is going to be 100% mistake free. Negative outcomes will happen in life. Get over it.
1) What's your point? 2) Really? I didn't know that.
There is a difference between protest and outright disregard for the law. In the Civil Rights protests led by Dr. King Jr, respect for the law was maintained even in their civil disobedience. Yes, Rosa Parks disobeyed the law, but her disobedience only served to highlight the illegitimacy of a law based on the color of one's skin. She didn't hit anyone, she didn't threaten anyone, she didn't force anyone to acquiesce to her point of view. She just was so freakin' tired she didn't want to move.
Do not equate intellectual property laws with civil rights. Two entirely separate issues with a lot more differences then similarities. It's like comparing grapes with watermelons.
Jim Crow laws had no basis in morality. Laws against rape, murder, and theft, however, do.
Copyright infringement laws have a (small) basis in morality (giving legal standing to the original author of a work so they can make money from it for at least a short time) whereas breaking them have no basis in morality (I want it for free despite the author's wishes otherwise) and calling it "civil disobedience" only dilutes the heart of civil disobedience and even revolutionist thinking.
Civil disobedience is a great means to changing unjust laws, don't get me wrong (again, Rosa Parks, Dr. King Jr, and the like). But fighting against gross copyright infringement using this as an excuse for what is essentially theft does not compute.
It is still the law, though. The reason governments exist in the first place is because man cannot live in a vacuum of moral absolutes. Murder is wrong. Theft is wrong. Rape is wrong. Without government telling everyone that there are specific punishments for specific crimes, anything can and will happen. No laws on rape? Watch men and women be violated even more than they are now. No laws on murder? Watch the spread of fear as roving gangs of vigilantes and sociopaths start killing not only each other but everyone else they encounter. No laws on theft? Watch everyone drop into the poor house except for those good enough not to get caught by their victim.
Don't get me wrong. I think current copyright law is immeasurably wrong. It does nothing for promoting the arts and is all about making every last corrupt dime out of a work as they possibly can. It's not about protecting the pseudo property known as IP. It's about power and money and who does and does not have it.
By widespread breaking of the law you are only proving the point that current laws need better enforcement and bigger punishments. I really don't like the alternative (indy bands and groups at places like Vodo, ClearBits, and Jamendo (and the like) or, you know, actually paying the RIAA for their artists' stuff (I'd rather pay the artist directly, thanks)), but if we are going to claim the moral high-ground of law abiding citizen and have a chance of being taken seriously, what is the choice?
No one sees copyright infringement as anything near revolutionary. To most people, those who willfully infringe are indeed nothing more than common criminals. Step up above that and walk the higher ground while lobbying your state and federal politicians. Otherwise, I don't want to hear about how unfair the system is. I know how unfair it is.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's a left-handed emoticon. (:
I already managed to read the article. :p
Interesting article. (:
There's a difference. When paving roads you're only going to use one sort of road surface (blacktop asphalt isn't the only option), not 29 different types.
[sarcasm]corporations are a legal entity, so why not? [/sarcasm]
But it's true. Whether you like it or not. (:
Please don't generalize. (:
Well considering it is, at its heart, a uniquely Christian holiday with a date co-opted from Pagan culture...
If not, I suggest you start training right now because the utilities will not be able to keep up with the demand for the installation of home charging stations and, under the NEC, a licensed electrician is an approved person for installing a home charging station. (:
Residential charging stations are already covered in the National Electric Code, fwiw (and the Code is considered law, with state/local overrides for specific provisions (with the approval of the AHJ)).
I think when I finish my training as an electrician, I will be getting with auto dealers in my state to directly market my services to those buying an electric car as they will most likely be in need of a charging station. (:
> I'm not a parent, but if I were
Obviously you were never a kid either. Toys and presents mean a _lot_ to kids. Your kid may appreciate a hug and kind word, but there is no real substitute for a present.
If the presents mean that much more to any child we may have, then I've failed my child. Period.
I remember being a kid and it wasn't about the presents for me (which is probably good because we weren't well off). I loved getting them, but like another poster: I don't remember a single one. I remember time spent with my paternal grandparents (my grandfather died in 1996). I remember time spent with my maternal grandmother (my maternal grandfather died from alcoholism around the time I was born). I remember time spent with my parents, sister, aunts, uncles and cousins.
All of this belies what the whole meaning for the season is, anyway. It's about the birth of Christ (the Christ in Christmas), while Easter is about His death (and not some stupid bunny that hides hard-boiled chicken eggs) and the fulfillment of prophecy through His death.
So yeah, if you're buying into the consumerism, and then using our the selfishness of a child to support it, you're celebrating the wrong thing and you've failed your child. I don't care if you don't agree with me. The truth is the truth.
Christmas isn't about presents. It isn't about who gets the most stuff. It's about the birth of a savior this world desperately needs but continues to reject. It's about family and love. The presents don't even come close to filling that role. They're a cheap and easy alternative to the true meaning of Christmas (Matthew 1:18-24).
I'll probably be modded into oblivion for the next couple of weeks, but whatever.
You've bought so fully into the lie of consumerism that you can't see anything else as being fulfilling for you or your family. That's a failure on society, sir; and yes, you and your wife for going along with it. Sorry, but I count that as an epic failure. One to be avoided on my part.
If that's what makes you and your family happy, so be it, but do not think for one moment that it's right to feed that mentality.
I'd have done the same. Just because someone calls themselves Christian does not mean they actually are.
Do not think that every Christian buys into the (false) "Name-it-and-Claim-It" gospel. It's a garbage presentation of the True Gospel of Jesus Christ.
When Alzheimer's kicks in you won't even remember what they are, much less why you have them. The only joy you will get is the day-to-day seeing of something "new". At that point, nothing will really matter as you'll just be existing.
Thank you, for so eloquently stating your position (one which I firmly agree with).
Then you've already indoctorinated your kids to the consumerist side of Christmas. There is plenty to be excited about without expensive presents. Teach your kids to enjoy the finer things in life (like each other's company) more than some toy.
You're right, I'm not a parent, but if I were, I hope my wife and I would be able to celebrate Christmas in some truly meaningful way. (:
Personally I do like the premise the OP advances. Instead of getting more stuff of little to no real value, they are making memories that will last longer than any item made of fiber, metal, or inorganic hydrocarbon compounds. By putting real thought and care into their choice for presents, they are retaining a sense of humanity that today's society dearly lacks.
Ummm... a few points:
1) FedEx is, as far as I know, the only major carrier that handles radioactive material. It doesn't go in their regular package delivery system; they have a separate division that handles it (and biohazards, poisons, explosives, and things like that). See: http://www.fedex.com/us/services/customcritical/specialty/hazardous/index.html
2) No delivery service is going to be 100% mistake free. Negative outcomes will happen in life. Get over it.
1) What's your point?
2) Really? I didn't know that.
I cannot believe someone thought it was a good idea to FedEx radioactive material. Someone needs to be fired.
See also: Civil rights movement
There is a difference between protest and outright disregard for the law. In the Civil Rights protests led by Dr. King Jr, respect for the law was maintained even in their civil disobedience. Yes, Rosa Parks disobeyed the law, but her disobedience only served to highlight the illegitimacy of a law based on the color of one's skin. She didn't hit anyone, she didn't threaten anyone, she didn't force anyone to acquiesce to her point of view. She just was so freakin' tired she didn't want to move.
Do not equate intellectual property laws with civil rights. Two entirely separate issues with a lot more differences then similarities. It's like comparing grapes with watermelons.
Jim Crow laws had no basis in morality. Laws against rape, murder, and theft, however, do.
Copyright infringement laws have a (small) basis in morality (giving legal standing to the original author of a work so they can make money from it for at least a short time) whereas breaking them have no basis in morality (I want it for free despite the author's wishes otherwise) and calling it "civil disobedience" only dilutes the heart of civil disobedience and even revolutionist thinking.
Civil disobedience is a great means to changing unjust laws, don't get me wrong (again, Rosa Parks, Dr. King Jr, and the like). But fighting against gross copyright infringement using this as an excuse for what is essentially theft does not compute.
It is still the law, though. The reason governments exist in the first place is because man cannot live in a vacuum of moral absolutes. Murder is wrong. Theft is wrong. Rape is wrong. Without government telling everyone that there are specific punishments for specific crimes, anything can and will happen. No laws on rape? Watch men and women be violated even more than they are now. No laws on murder? Watch the spread of fear as roving gangs of vigilantes and sociopaths start killing not only each other but everyone else they encounter. No laws on theft? Watch everyone drop into the poor house except for those good enough not to get caught by their victim.
Don't get me wrong. I think current copyright law is immeasurably wrong. It does nothing for promoting the arts and is all about making every last corrupt dime out of a work as they possibly can. It's not about protecting the pseudo property known as IP. It's about power and money and who does and does not have it.
By widespread breaking of the law you are only proving the point that current laws need better enforcement and bigger punishments. I really don't like the alternative (indy bands and groups at places like Vodo, ClearBits, and Jamendo (and the like) or, you know, actually paying the RIAA for their artists' stuff (I'd rather pay the artist directly, thanks)), but if we are going to claim the moral high-ground of law abiding citizen and have a chance of being taken seriously, what is the choice?
No one sees copyright infringement as anything near revolutionary. To most people, those who willfully infringe are indeed nothing more than common criminals. Step up above that and walk the higher ground while lobbying your state and federal politicians. Otherwise, I don't want to hear about how unfair the system is. I know how unfair it is.
However that may be, just blatantly disregarding the law is not the solution. At least not in this case.
I know. ):