The problem with your statement is you start with the presupposition that your worldview is correct. Those who are against abortion feel that way because they perceive an unborn child as a human being who has a right to life. Yet liberals always frame the argument as "conservatives are against women's rights" (even though it's only a single "right" in question).
Then again, phrasing it that way changes the frame of the discussion from women's rights to "when does life begin?", which is much harder to argue in favor of abortion, since by scientific definition life begins at conception, and by genetic definition the fetus is a human being. It's much easier to re-frame the issue as women's rights, and paint opponents as sexist bigots.
Also, the law in Florida you mentioned came to light because it was used to stop a church from feeding the poor. The same church that is filled with conservatives (who are also painted as "idiots who believe in a magical sky fairy", because again, it's easier to paint your opponent as stupid than it is to actually debate their ideas).
If Rand Paul wanted a higher office, he would play the game like all the other members of congress. Enough people don't even pay attention to what their congressmen do that your best bet to move up is to play the game and be valuable to your party, so that they financially back you and prop you up.
Yes, they can search based on suspicion. However, the checkpoint alone does not grant the police the right to search your vehicle. Now granted, all an officer has to do is *claim* to smell marijuana, so in practice the police can search any car they want at a checkpoint. But from a legal perspective, it is not so.
The problem (well, one of them) is that our current government model is designed for the 18th century. With the advent of the internet, voting could be done online, and most people could do it at home (and those who cannot afford or do not own a computer could use public computers set up at their local town hall where they vote now). Tallies could be done instantly after voting ends. This means that politicians are not really as necessary as they used to be - voting can now be done quickly, easily, and cheaply enough that the general public can vote on laws and referendums. No more electoral college, either. The president can be the candidate with the purely majority vote.
Anyways, the current establishment would never go for that, but it's nice to dream.
This is *before* those limits were lifted. As a citizen, I'm looking forward to seeing the power of the wealthy further cemented in this country, and so exquisitely draped in the pretense of democracy that my fellow citizens believe themselves empowered. It's gonna get better! (For the wealthy). How exciting for those of us who imagine ourselves upwardly mobile within the American caste system.
George Lakoff explained how it works in his book Don't think of an elephant. People don't vote for what's best for them (using logic). They vote their identity, and the conservitives have made excellent use of language to frame the debate in such a way that poor people actually feel good about removing social services, by voting Republican. Tax cuts are framed as "tax relieve", only relieving the state of so much money it can't afford social programs anymore.
In their view social programs are bad for poor people, as poor people deserve to be poor, and this punishes them for not working hard enough. Rich people deserve to be rich. They are clever, otherwise they wouldn't be rich. If poor people want to be rich, let them work for it. Poor people are needed to serve the rich. (This is not my view to be clear).
Another important frame: Pro Life! Abortion is bad, because it undermines the power of the father in the family. When a teenager becomes pregnant, it's her own fault, and she should live with the consequences. She didn't listen to her father, who is the moral authority and who decides what's good and what't wrong. When an adult woman decides to have an abortion because she wants to work on her career, she undermines this strict-father-morale as well. A career is not for women - they should stay at home and raise the children. Pro Life is not about life, it's about male dominance. Pro Life is not about the life of that baby - they don't care about that baby that probably would have little value to them. Pro Life is not about life, because it's OK to physically attack and occasionally kill people who work at abortion clinics. Casualties of war!
How can you be against life? Are you for real that you want more taxes? Vote Conservative!
Ouch, that poor straw man didn't stand a chance against you...
It's nice that the ACA gives everyone health insurance. However, it does little of anything to address the fact that health care in this country costs far more than it should (3 times as much by some comparisons to other first world countries).
People need to stop interchanging "health insurance" and "healthcare". They are not the same thing.
Because, assuming that all the industry (in my case, hospitality) specific software works in wine, then between the hurdles of convincing upper management to switch to Linux, training every user how to use a new operating system, and trying to convince tech support from our vendors to help us even though we are on a technically unsupported operating system, it's honestly cheaper just to upgrade to Windows 7.
Here in Vermont, a few years back they redrew the flood maps, and a large number of people ended up being added to the flood areas. This cause a lot of outcry for people who suddenly had to buy flood insurance in order to keep their mortgages. Of course, they stopped whining after Hurricane Irene hit and caused a ton of flood damage and taking out a lot of houses that had just started being covered by flood insurance...
Funny, my Android phone uses a common charger. Apple does not, so I don't buy from them (among other reasons). That's how a free market works. The problem is that too many people aren't willing to give up their precious iPhones in protest to Apple's greedy business practices of using expensive proprietary software. I guarantee you if the majority of Apple's customers stopped buying their products, Apple would start changing. But they don't, so Apple has no reason to stop doing what they are doing.
Corporations won't usually self regulate. They will, however, take the most profitable route. If consumers don't demand regulation from corporations in exchange for their money, then obviously it won't happen.
And I bet high school parking lots are far more likely to see an accident than your local strip mall parking lot. The people using the former are mostly people with no driving experience.
Let me propose a scenario:
A group of neo nazis walk in to a cake shop. They ask the shop owner, who is Jewish, to make a cake. The owner asks them what they want on the cake. The Neo nazis reply "We want the cake to say "Happy Birthday Hitler, thank you for the Holocaust"
Should this shop owner be required by law to endorse Hitler's birthday and the Holocaust?
Or to use a non Godwin example:
The Westboro Baptist Church walks in to a cake shop and asks the gay owner for a cake that says "God hates fags" on it.
Should the owner be forced by law to make this cake?
Also, a point a lot of people miss, is that there is a difference between refusing service to someone because of who they are, and refusing service because of what they are asking for.
After not playing for a good 8 years, I busted out my old arcade style controller and got back in to pop'n music. I personally think it is one of the best rhythm games ever created. Plus now I have a wife and child (when the child is old enough) to share the fun with.
Because I am an American and I don't have experience with the politics of the rest of the world. While I would be surprised if the rest of the world was any different, I didn't want to be presumptuous.
And Republican politicians have no interest in an actual free market or personal rights. Welcome to American politics, where politicians say they are for something, but are really just out for their own self interest.
Actually, Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden of Eden not because Eve was deceived in to eating the fruit, but because Adam (knowing full well the consequences) chose to be with his wife rather than with God.
If you're going to be critical of the Bible, at least understand what it actually says first.
With a bit of tweaking, YouTube could also easily help you discover "new" music. It already does it (inefficiently) with suggested videos listed once your video is finished. Combine that with the ability to sell your song on iTunes, and I honestly see no need for record labels anymore.
So how exactly does this 0.5 meter resolution compare to the current resolution on google's sattelite pics? Seems to me like the current pics have pixels thinner than 0.5 meters... I feel like I am missing something? I don't really know much about photography, so maybe someone can fill me in.
Slashdot Mirror
Include a law that makes any cop's testimony that is not backed up by there personal camera inadmissible in court.
The problem with your statement is you start with the presupposition that your worldview is correct. Those who are against abortion feel that way because they perceive an unborn child as a human being who has a right to life. Yet liberals always frame the argument as "conservatives are against women's rights" (even though it's only a single "right" in question). Then again, phrasing it that way changes the frame of the discussion from women's rights to "when does life begin?", which is much harder to argue in favor of abortion, since by scientific definition life begins at conception, and by genetic definition the fetus is a human being. It's much easier to re-frame the issue as women's rights, and paint opponents as sexist bigots. Also, the law in Florida you mentioned came to light because it was used to stop a church from feeding the poor. The same church that is filled with conservatives (who are also painted as "idiots who believe in a magical sky fairy", because again, it's easier to paint your opponent as stupid than it is to actually debate their ideas).
If Rand Paul wanted a higher office, he would play the game like all the other members of congress. Enough people don't even pay attention to what their congressmen do that your best bet to move up is to play the game and be valuable to your party, so that they financially back you and prop you up.
Since you mentioned liberty, does that mean you don't believe the government gets to incarcerate you either?
"...a laptop running either Windows, Mac OS X or Linux" Aw crap, I guess my DOSbook is out :(
Yes, they can search based on suspicion. However, the checkpoint alone does not grant the police the right to search your vehicle. Now granted, all an officer has to do is *claim* to smell marijuana, so in practice the police can search any car they want at a checkpoint. But from a legal perspective, it is not so.
The problem (well, one of them) is that our current government model is designed for the 18th century. With the advent of the internet, voting could be done online, and most people could do it at home (and those who cannot afford or do not own a computer could use public computers set up at their local town hall where they vote now). Tallies could be done instantly after voting ends. This means that politicians are not really as necessary as they used to be - voting can now be done quickly, easily, and cheaply enough that the general public can vote on laws and referendums. No more electoral college, either. The president can be the candidate with the purely majority vote. Anyways, the current establishment would never go for that, but it's nice to dream.
This is *before* those limits were lifted. As a citizen, I'm looking forward to seeing the power of the wealthy further cemented in this country, and so exquisitely draped in the pretense of democracy that my fellow citizens believe themselves empowered. It's gonna get better! (For the wealthy). How exciting for those of us who imagine ourselves upwardly mobile within the American caste system.
George Lakoff explained how it works in his book Don't think of an elephant. People don't vote for what's best for them (using logic). They vote their identity, and the conservitives have made excellent use of language to frame the debate in such a way that poor people actually feel good about removing social services, by voting Republican. Tax cuts are framed as "tax relieve", only relieving the state of so much money it can't afford social programs anymore.
In their view social programs are bad for poor people, as poor people deserve to be poor, and this punishes them for not working hard enough. Rich people deserve to be rich. They are clever, otherwise they wouldn't be rich. If poor people want to be rich, let them work for it. Poor people are needed to serve the rich. (This is not my view to be clear).
Another important frame: Pro Life! Abortion is bad, because it undermines the power of the father in the family. When a teenager becomes pregnant, it's her own fault, and she should live with the consequences. She didn't listen to her father, who is the moral authority and who decides what's good and what't wrong. When an adult woman decides to have an abortion because she wants to work on her career, she undermines this strict-father-morale as well. A career is not for women - they should stay at home and raise the children. Pro Life is not about life, it's about male dominance. Pro Life is not about the life of that baby - they don't care about that baby that probably would have little value to them. Pro Life is not about life, because it's OK to physically attack and occasionally kill people who work at abortion clinics. Casualties of war!
How can you be against life? Are you for real that you want more taxes? Vote Conservative!
Ouch, that poor straw man didn't stand a chance against you...
Of course they vacated his conviction based on the wrong venue instead of the merits of the case. This guarantees there is no controversy.
It's nice that the ACA gives everyone health insurance. However, it does little of anything to address the fact that health care in this country costs far more than it should (3 times as much by some comparisons to other first world countries). People need to stop interchanging "health insurance" and "healthcare". They are not the same thing.
The system seems to work.
Even a broken clock etc etc
Because, assuming that all the industry (in my case, hospitality) specific software works in wine, then between the hurdles of convincing upper management to switch to Linux, training every user how to use a new operating system, and trying to convince tech support from our vendors to help us even though we are on a technically unsupported operating system, it's honestly cheaper just to upgrade to Windows 7.
Here in Vermont, a few years back they redrew the flood maps, and a large number of people ended up being added to the flood areas. This cause a lot of outcry for people who suddenly had to buy flood insurance in order to keep their mortgages. Of course, they stopped whining after Hurricane Irene hit and caused a ton of flood damage and taking out a lot of houses that had just started being covered by flood insurance...
I politician *lied* to me?! I feel so disillusioned....
Funny, my Android phone uses a common charger. Apple does not, so I don't buy from them (among other reasons). That's how a free market works. The problem is that too many people aren't willing to give up their precious iPhones in protest to Apple's greedy business practices of using expensive proprietary software. I guarantee you if the majority of Apple's customers stopped buying their products, Apple would start changing. But they don't, so Apple has no reason to stop doing what they are doing. Corporations won't usually self regulate. They will, however, take the most profitable route. If consumers don't demand regulation from corporations in exchange for their money, then obviously it won't happen.
I know that even mentioning this on /. gets you modded to oblivion
Looks like you got modded so far in to oblivion you looped around to +5. Impressive!
"Well my kid died of measles, but at least he didn't get Autism"
And I bet high school parking lots are far more likely to see an accident than your local strip mall parking lot. The people using the former are mostly people with no driving experience.
Let me propose a scenario: A group of neo nazis walk in to a cake shop. They ask the shop owner, who is Jewish, to make a cake. The owner asks them what they want on the cake. The Neo nazis reply "We want the cake to say "Happy Birthday Hitler, thank you for the Holocaust" Should this shop owner be required by law to endorse Hitler's birthday and the Holocaust? Or to use a non Godwin example: The Westboro Baptist Church walks in to a cake shop and asks the gay owner for a cake that says "God hates fags" on it. Should the owner be forced by law to make this cake? Also, a point a lot of people miss, is that there is a difference between refusing service to someone because of who they are, and refusing service because of what they are asking for.
After not playing for a good 8 years, I busted out my old arcade style controller and got back in to pop'n music. I personally think it is one of the best rhythm games ever created. Plus now I have a wife and child (when the child is old enough) to share the fun with.
Because I am an American and I don't have experience with the politics of the rest of the world. While I would be surprised if the rest of the world was any different, I didn't want to be presumptuous.
And Republican politicians have no interest in an actual free market or personal rights. Welcome to American politics, where politicians say they are for something, but are really just out for their own self interest.
Actually, Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden of Eden not because Eve was deceived in to eating the fruit, but because Adam (knowing full well the consequences) chose to be with his wife rather than with God. If you're going to be critical of the Bible, at least understand what it actually says first.
With a bit of tweaking, YouTube could also easily help you discover "new" music. It already does it (inefficiently) with suggested videos listed once your video is finished. Combine that with the ability to sell your song on iTunes, and I honestly see no need for record labels anymore.
So how exactly does this 0.5 meter resolution compare to the current resolution on google's sattelite pics? Seems to me like the current pics have pixels thinner than 0.5 meters... I feel like I am missing something? I don't really know much about photography, so maybe someone can fill me in.