Oh hey, I don't read/watch Fox News on anything nearing a regular basis (probably 5 times within the last 2 years) and certainly don't know what they have to say on this issue.
The law requires police to check with federal authorities on a person's immigration status, if officers have stopped that person for some legitimate reason and come to suspect that he or she might be in the U.S. illegally. The heart of the law is this provision: "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agencywhere reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person"
Emphasis mine.
BUT that's just one source (and an opinion column at that). Unfortunately that's the only article I can fine that takes a look at the term "lawful contact". If you can find more, go for it.
So you want me to cover every lie that has ever been told? Seriously? Are you that ignorant?
You're right, I did make the assertion but I did so thinking I was actually talking to a living, breathing human who appreciates the value of honesty and understood the inherent harm in the lie.
bill them extra for it than. Seriously. Don't over-charge them, but let them know the extra charge is because of the extra time and effort needed for IE6 compatibility.
Like I said, as an indy web developer, I don't have that issue. If I were working for a PHB things would be different. As an indy consultant I would give off what I've done to a sub-contractor to fill in for the IE6 compatibility issues, as an employee of the company I would seek out someone with the skills to make it IE6 compatible. My focus is on W3C compliance, then style, then backwards compatibility with broken and ancient tech (IE6, for example). I still have a place in my heart for dial-up users, though. All my personal sites have a load time of under 10 seconds.
I'm glad I don't work for a company where it's a must (I'm an indy web developer, though only part time right now). I make it very clear that IE6 support is out of the question. If they want/need IE6 support, I'll hand them well commented code (not that I don't anyway) and recommend them to someone good that will give them that support.
I just don't do it. Seriously, I refuse to support IE6 in any way, shape or form. If that means I miss a section of a potential market, so be it. Let them catch up to the 21st century.
Really? And here I thought we were all providing EXAMPLES. The truth is never more harmful than the lie. The lie is always more harmful then the truth. I have yet to see one proper example of the lie being better then the truth.
I read the article and didn't see where he said that at all.
From the fine article:
VATICAN CITY | We've come to Rome for a week to explore how the new wave in the Catholic clergy sex abuse scandal is being seen and dealt with by the Vatican, the power center of worldwide Catholicism. Pope Benedict XVI is coming under increasing pressure, as hundreds of charges of alleged priest abuse of minors explode throughout Europe -- so we were eager to see him at the earliest possible opportunity.
Hence our attendance Saturday morning at a conference on digital media at the cavernous Paul VI hall in the Vatican. We were ushered to the nosebleed balcony reserved for the "stampa" (press), where we could look out over an 8,000-person sea of the Italian Catholic media -- journalists and editors of newspapers, Web sites, radio and television, and teachers, professors and cultural figures, and webmasters of Catholic organizations of all types. Anticipating the noontime arrival of the pope himself, many had brought their families and children, too.
It was the last morning of a three-day conference on how the church should use and deal with the digital media of today. "Have they talked about the sex abuse scandal?" I whispered to a young reporter for Avvenire, the country's dominant Catholic newspaper. She smiled and shook her head: "Not a chance."
But then, the silence was broken. Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, took his turn at the microphone. "The situation in which we are living is extremely exacting, and we are asked to be absolutely truthful and credible," he said. The last couple of months have been very difficult, he went on, with so many questions being raised about things that happened long ago. But he said, "This is the time for truth, transparency and credibility. Secrecy and discretion are not values that are in fashion at the moment. We must be in a condition of having nothing to hide." The crowd applauded.
What did he mean? Just how open is the Vatican prepared to be about the spreading web of allegations of clerical cover-up of abusive priests' cases in decades past? As the panel was cleared away to install a gilded tapestry-upholstered chair on a platform atop an oriental carpet was readied, we hoped Pope Benedict would fill out the picture. Suddenly the scene transported us back in time. Two Swiss Guards in medieval dress, grasping halberds (a two-handed pole weapon last used to battle effect in the 15th century) stood flanking it. Bugles sounded a herald, but the pope didn't appear. The audience waited, and waited... for 30 minutes.
Finally, a cry rose up as he was glimpsed walking in from stage right -- arms out in the familiar pose of benediction. "Papa! Papa!" the crowd cried. He made his way to the throne, sat for a fulsome introduction by the head bishop of the Italian church, then began to speak. What he said did not sound overly encouraging to devotees of the new digital age.
"The times in which we living knows a huge widening of the frontiers of communication," he said (according to our Italian fixer/producer) and the new media of this new age points to a more "egalitarian and pluralistic" forum. But, he went on to say, it also opens a new hole, the "digital divide" between haves and have-nots. Even more ominous, he said, it exacerbates tensions between nations and within nations themselves. And it increases the "dangers of... intellectual and moral relativism," which can lead to "multiple forms of degradation and humiliation" of the essence of a person, and to the "pollution of the spirit." All in all, it seemed a pretty grim view of the wide open communication parameters being demanded by the Internet age.
So where does this Vatican stand on being more transparent about how it has handled priest abuse cases in decades past? Will it respond to the call for greater openness that we have heard from so many Catholics here, in our two brief days so far? It was hard to glimpse the truth from our Vatican encounter Saturday. We can only hope to be able to shed greater light on the question by week's end.
Also, your examples are facetious. If someone really cares how large one's penis is compared to a past suitor, they have much larger issues to deal with.
Also, most parents have a knack for being tactful with their own children (and telling them they are good for them to only find out later it wasn't true does more harm than good).
All your examples illustrate a lack of tact (and bigger issues that have nothing to do with lying or not lying).
Even the justice system caters to this one. I don't have links handy, but I've heard of a few cases where the non-biological father was made to pay child-support just because the woman, who lied in this case, said he should.
If you can't think of even one situation on your own where lying is better than the truth, you really need to take a look at yourself. I have found that the truth, while it might be hard to swallow at times, has always had a better outcome then a lie.
Oh hey, I just thought of another one. On 60 minutes yesterday was this woman who lied about this guy raping her. He wound up in prison for about 4 years before she managed to spring him out by telling the truth. But I guess lying was the better option, huh?
Good points. And you're right. Making something illegal isn't going to help. Making things legal might help. Legal but not so easily accessible? I think that would be a big help because it would require a series of decisions that can be stopped anywhere along the path.
I'll agree with that, the original comment was indeed a derogatory one, and I stand corrected on it's original meaning. That doesn't change the fact that the meaning of words evolve over of time.
To be honest, there are some aspects of being a "redneck" (as the term is now used) I like (fishing (never been hunting), formerly drinking beer (though I had expensive tastes), etc.). So to me the term has never been derogatory in intent.
And yet we have gambling in most states. We have people (I've personally witnessed this) spending over $300 of their money buying lotto tickets (scratchies and drawing). Doesn't seem to be really helping any either.
Perhaps what you meant was that the Federal government doesn't do legalized gambling. True enough, but since that's not really one of the enumerated powers of the feds, that's an example of "working as intended".
Slashdot Mirror
Oh hey, I don't read/watch Fox News on anything nearing a regular basis (probably 5 times within the last 2 years) and certainly don't know what they have to say on this issue.
How's that assumption working out for ya?
From the Washington Examiner:
Emphasis mine.
BUT that's just one source (and an opinion column at that). Unfortunately that's the only article I can fine that takes a look at the term "lawful contact". If you can find more, go for it.
Actually, first they have to have a reason to stop you (e.g. traffic violation).
So you want me to cover every lie that has ever been told? Seriously? Are you that ignorant?
You're right, I did make the assertion but I did so thinking I was actually talking to a living, breathing human who appreciates the value of honesty and understood the inherent harm in the lie.
I keep on forgetting I'm on /.
bill them extra for it than. Seriously. Don't over-charge them, but let them know the extra charge is because of the extra time and effort needed for IE6 compatibility.
Like I said, as an indy web developer, I don't have that issue. If I were working for a PHB things would be different. As an indy consultant I would give off what I've done to a sub-contractor to fill in for the IE6 compatibility issues, as an employee of the company I would seek out someone with the skills to make it IE6 compatible. My focus is on W3C compliance, then style, then backwards compatibility with broken and ancient tech (IE6, for example). I still have a place in my heart for dial-up users, though. All my personal sites have a load time of under 10 seconds.
That's actually pretty good. I should start doing that myself.
This is true. To open a brokerage account at most places (like TD Waterhouse and Ameritrade) you need to invest an initial $2k.
I'm glad I don't work for a company where it's a must (I'm an indy web developer, though only part time right now). I make it very clear that IE6 support is out of the question. If they want/need IE6 support, I'll hand them well commented code (not that I don't anyway) and recommend them to someone good that will give them that support.
Web/image compression software? Do they make you connect through a proxy?
I'd find a new ISP if you can. Sounds like you've got a real winner there.
FF 3.6/Chrome/IE8 (in order of most used to least used, with the last two having never been used in the past 6 months).
I just don't do it. Seriously, I refuse to support IE6 in any way, shape or form. If that means I miss a section of a potential market, so be it. Let them catch up to the 21st century.
That's just it. MS is not supporting IE6 anymore. To me that sounds like no more patches.
Really? And here I thought we were all providing EXAMPLES. The truth is never more harmful than the lie. The lie is always more harmful then the truth. I have yet to see one proper example of the lie being better then the truth.
I read the article and didn't see where he said that at all.
From the fine article:
Emphasis mine.
Also, your examples are facetious. If someone really cares how large one's penis is compared to a past suitor, they have much larger issues to deal with.
Also, most parents have a knack for being tactful with their own children (and telling them they are good for them to only find out later it wasn't true does more harm than good).
All your examples illustrate a lack of tact (and bigger issues that have nothing to do with lying or not lying).
Honesty is underrated, as is tact (tact is where you tell the truth but in such a way that it's not insulting to the recipient).
"Is the child mine?"
LIE: "Yes."
Truth: "No."
Even the justice system caters to this one. I don't have links handy, but I've heard of a few cases where the non-biological father was made to pay child-support just because the woman, who lied in this case, said he should.
If you can't think of even one situation on your own where lying is better than the truth, you really need to take a look at yourself. I have found that the truth, while it might be hard to swallow at times, has always had a better outcome then a lie.
Oh hey, I just thought of another one. On 60 minutes yesterday was this woman who lied about this guy raping her. He wound up in prison for about 4 years before she managed to spring him out by telling the truth. But I guess lying was the better option, huh?
I'm boo for big government and I'm boo for making gambling more accessible.
Good points. And you're right. Making something illegal isn't going to help. Making things legal might help. Legal but not so easily accessible? I think that would be a big help because it would require a series of decisions that can be stopped anywhere along the path.
I'll agree with that, the original comment was indeed a derogatory one, and I stand corrected on it's original meaning. That doesn't change the fact that the meaning of words evolve over of time.
To be honest, there are some aspects of being a "redneck" (as the term is now used) I like (fishing (never been hunting), formerly drinking beer (though I had expensive tastes), etc.). So to me the term has never been derogatory in intent.
Or not go out of your way to put them in situations where they are tempted.
In the works, or so I've heard. ;)
If I asked any of the people I know of if they found the term redneck derogatory they'd laugh all the way to the bank.
And yet we have gambling in most states. We have people (I've personally witnessed this) spending over $300 of their money buying lotto tickets (scratchies and drawing). Doesn't seem to be really helping any either.
Too true (: