You're pretty close to the real point - in a billion years, those fancy tablets would be subducted back into the mantle - geologists, feel free to correct the words, but the idea is right - by then, everything on the surface will be recycled back into the earth.
An illustration? Ah, you mean the same way that R congressman said that 90% of Planned Parenthood's business was abortion, but his office later clarified that it was "not meant as a factual representation"?
Gotcha. But you still didn't say whether you are literally stockpiling physical books because you think you won't be able to get them later, and if you actually are doing that, the title of one of them.
And you didn't provide a link to back up why you posted such an overheated rant in the first place - any instances of "radical" literature censored by private companies OR the U.S. government in the last 50 years.
C'mon, did you mean any of it, or was your post entirely hot air?
You missed my point. I said I didn't think it should be censored.
My point is that lumping soft core mommy porn like 50 Shades in with what the publishers pulled ignores the fact that it is some vile shit and WHILE NOT CENSORING IT, we can still call it out for being vile shit.
Warning that Amazon is going to remove Karl Marx's books from their catalog is hyperbole. Why do you think anyone should take your opinion seriously if you claim that? And are you *really* claiming you are "stocking up" on books because you think they won't be available in the future? Really? Which books - name a couple.
Banning Hitler's Mein Kampf? Well, maybe - but only in Germany, where they don't have a First Amendment, and do have the legacy of Nazis. Not in the U.S.
Link me some example of "radical" literature censored by a private company OR the U.S. government in the past 50 years. Seriously, I'd like to see that. (Hint: Lenny Bruce's stage act doesn't count; that was for being a potty mouth.)
Well, not that i am into erotica, but I dislike being told what I am being allowed to read by private company.
You're not. A private company is deciding which products it wishes to sell and which it does not.
The problem with eBooks, though, is that in most implementations they can reach in and retroactively remove the books you've purchased. So even if they chose to sell a book and you chose to buy it, they can choose to un-sell the book to you if they decide the content is a problem for them.
If and when I purchase an ebook that might be deleted by Amazon for this reason, then I'll take the (simple, easy) steps to keep them from doing it. If I discover that they don't offer content that I want because of dopes like The Kernel, then I'll take my business elsewhere. Until then, Amazon does a very good job for me.
I see both sides getting the vapours about this issue, which is an overreaction.
I guess you didn't read the article - the books The Kernel complains about are pseudo-incest, lots of coerced, non-consensual sex, and characters depicted as underage girls but with the disclaimer that the characters are over 18.
It's some pretty sick shit, but I wouldn't want it censored as it doesn't hurt anyone. However, it's miles apart from "Fifty Shades of Grey", which is pretty mild, and clearly about consenting adults. Let's keep some perspective.
False positives on weight sensors in minibars are a feature, not a bug. The hotel needs to charge you $8 for that Toblerone to help make up for the money they lose on minibars in the first place.
He said, "clean". Clean taxis are as rare as unicorn semen.
On my last trip, my wife and I used a local car service - late model, spotless town car, uniformed driver, sane, safe driving. Worth it at $150 with tip each way.
Why in the world do you change the ROM on your phone weekly? Is it a hobby? Entertainment? Does the tinfoil around it not keep out the government spyware?
Sorry to hear you're an old man with tons of oil stocks. The natural gas industry is going to continue to grow for decades, and you may never realize value recovery/growth from oil before you take that long dirt nap.
Disclaimer: I'm not thrilled about the breackneck expansion of U.S. natural gas exploitation.
This isn't a story about the science, it's about the provenance of some old rag, and a reminder that the chain of evidence matters.
The only people who should care are the posers and jerkoffs who like to trade on some accidental genetic connection to a dead king from an obsolete form of government. Isn't France on a republic or two beyond that one by now?
Your national review article lists more "be on the lookout" keywords that could trigger reviews of progress group applications than the study from your first post used, which claimed a disproportionate review of conservative groups' applications.
What you have done is cast doubt on the study that YOU cited, without showing any citation to an objective study using a more complete list of the keywords used by the IRS.
You do understand you just undercut your own argument, and bolstered my point that the study was a hatchet job, don't you?
You're still not getting it - the preconceptions of your politics won't let you get it. The republicans PLANNED this, every step of the way. That is beyond dispute, and what they are doing is not compromise. I won't repeat the reasoning from my previous post because you are beyond reason.
...if a state was starting to get out of the "norm" considered by the rest of the country, information flow would correct the issue.
This is my quote of the day - it's funny as hell! Here's a little example about my favorite special needs child, Texas. They loves to kill the peoples in Texas (you know which people, of course).
And this is WITH the federal controls over extreme mistreatment of citizens. Imagine what Texas would do WITHOUT that level of control! Oh, we actually do know - within 2 hours of the SCOTUS gutting of the Voting Rights Act, Texas reactivated their minority voting suppression laws.
They're not trying to change the ACA, they're trying to KILL it. Even when they *say* they just want some changes, their goal is to repeal the entire bill, but preventing it from taking effect until (they think) they get a majority in both houses and perhaps also the presidency.
If you think otherwise, you've either not been following the news, or you're deliberately fooling yourself. Do a search on the preparation that Ted Cruz, the Heritage Foundation, and lots of other parties did over the past six months or so. You can't "compromise" with someone who's trying to burn down your house.
It's funny to see all the time and thought(?) you're spending on a small side effect (the administration, I agree, is making it clearer what the shutdown means), and not complaining about the radical republicans who started this mess by attempting to blackmail the president into killing his own law, the ACA.
Oh, monuments closed to a couple of hundred vets, that's very sad. But the republicans' shutdown is affecting Meals on Wheels, which serves tens of thousands of elderly, including veterans. Here's one small piece of that - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=228551347
Oh, and WIC assistance is also shut down. Good thing Fox is calling this a government "slimdown" - those women, infants, and children could probably stand to lose a few pounds.
Why are you paying attention to the sideshow instead of the real problem?
I hope they do. Congress is not doing its job by passing piecemeal funding bills. They continue to hurt the country with those, especially as we approach the debt ceiling.
The republicans even admit they don't know exactly what they want to extort from the president to end this, but that now "it's about pride", and they have to get something.
Piecemeal funding of the government is the height of irresponsibility. No wait, it's the only the second highest level of irresponsibility - the height of irresponsibility was the deliberate shutting of the government by the republican extremists.
"Compromise." You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
Once again - the republicans have been planning this blackmail for MONTHS, with actual meetings, agendas, communication plans and talking points. They deliberately decided to sabotage the ACA by adding the poison pill that would defund it to the CR.
You can't "compromise" with someone who's trying to burn down your house. There's no question that this is not only the republicans' shutdown, they did this deliberately, with advance planning. They WANTED to do this.
I think it's likely that the president is making the point about what the republicans are doing by apply the letter of the law, and closing some things that could have been kept open (illegally). Yes, that's a partisan tactic, but guess what? This is politics. And it's not even remotely the same as the irresponsible tea party republicans who started this fire.
And in a couple of weeks, they're going to do it AGAIN when we reach the debt limit, and they continue the blackmail. They will refuse to pay for things for which they themselves already authorized the spending, and if they take it too close to the wire, like last time, they will damage the U.S. credit rating AGAIN, which will make it more expensive for us to borrow money, therefore increasing the deficit and the national debt.
You might think the republicans are fighting for you, but no, not even close. And yet you defend them.
It's possible your assertion is correct. However, the story in the link below describes a Republican study that came to the conclusion you claim, and pointed out how the study was flawed - it didn't even describe the timeframe examined, whether the applications in the study were the same ones reviewed by the people implicated in the "scandal", and only used one liberal keyword, "progressive", instead of say, "peace", as in "Americans for Peace".
Do you have a citation for any study that is not an obvious partisan hatchet job? Remember, these are the same people who inserted a poison pill for the ACA into unrelated budget bills, then called the resulting mess the "Obama Shutdown".
And as for the "trade liberty for security" crowd, I suspect you're talking about the 80% of people who wanted modest commonsense background checks following one or another horrific mass shooting. Rest easy, you may not remember that the republican lapdogs thwarted the will of the people quite handily in that case.
Slashdot Mirror
You're pretty close to the real point - in a billion years, those fancy tablets would be subducted back into the mantle - geologists, feel free to correct the words, but the idea is right - by then, everything on the surface will be recycled back into the earth.
It's vile shit, because I say it's vile shit, because that's my opinion.
For someone who just defended free speech as an absolute, you sure seem to have your knickers in a twist about my exercising same.
For perspective take a look at this. Banning books based on how well they conform to social norms is not good.
Well then, it's a GOOD THING I SAID THE BOOKS AT ISSUE SHOULD NOT BE BANNED.
Not once, but twice. I'm *still* calling them out as vile shit, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with your list. Deal with it.
Got it. You don't have the sophistication to appreciate the masterpiece that was "Dexter".
An illustration? Ah, you mean the same way that R congressman said that 90% of Planned Parenthood's business was abortion, but his office later clarified that it was "not meant as a factual representation"?
Gotcha. But you still didn't say whether you are literally stockpiling physical books because you think you won't be able to get them later, and if you actually are doing that, the title of one of them.
And you didn't provide a link to back up why you posted such an overheated rant in the first place - any instances of "radical" literature censored by private companies OR the U.S. government in the last 50 years.
C'mon, did you mean any of it, or was your post entirely hot air?
You missed my point. I said I didn't think it should be censored.
My point is that lumping soft core mommy porn like 50 Shades in with what the publishers pulled ignores the fact that it is some vile shit and WHILE NOT CENSORING IT, we can still call it out for being vile shit.
Warning that Amazon is going to remove Karl Marx's books from their catalog is hyperbole. Why do you think anyone should take your opinion seriously if you claim that? And are you *really* claiming you are "stocking up" on books because you think they won't be available in the future? Really? Which books - name a couple.
Banning Hitler's Mein Kampf? Well, maybe - but only in Germany, where they don't have a First Amendment, and do have the legacy of Nazis. Not in the U.S.
Link me some example of "radical" literature censored by a private company OR the U.S. government in the past 50 years. Seriously, I'd like to see that. (Hint: Lenny Bruce's stage act doesn't count; that was for being a potty mouth.)
Well, not that i am into erotica, but I dislike being told what I am being allowed to read by private company.
You're not. A private company is deciding which products it wishes to sell and which it does not.
The problem with eBooks, though, is that in most implementations they can reach in and retroactively remove the books you've purchased. So even if they chose to sell a book and you chose to buy it, they can choose to un-sell the book to you if they decide the content is a problem for them.
If and when I purchase an ebook that might be deleted by Amazon for this reason, then I'll take the (simple, easy) steps to keep them from doing it. If I discover that they don't offer content that I want because of dopes like The Kernel, then I'll take my business elsewhere. Until then, Amazon does a very good job for me.
I see both sides getting the vapours about this issue, which is an overreaction.
I guess you didn't read the article - the books The Kernel complains about are pseudo-incest, lots of coerced, non-consensual sex, and characters depicted as underage girls but with the disclaimer that the characters are over 18.
It's some pretty sick shit, but I wouldn't want it censored as it doesn't hurt anyone. However, it's miles apart from "Fifty Shades of Grey", which is pretty mild, and clearly about consenting adults. Let's keep some perspective.
False positives on weight sensors in minibars are a feature, not a bug. The hotel needs to charge you $8 for that Toblerone to help make up for the money they lose on minibars in the first place.
He said, "clean". Clean taxis are as rare as unicorn semen.
On my last trip, my wife and I used a local car service - late model, spotless town car, uniformed driver, sane, safe driving. Worth it at $150 with tip each way.
I read the article, and yes, that's the whole point.
He's full of shit, this was a waste of time. The only silver lining is I know he won't target me to buy something related to this blather.
Why in the world do you change the ROM on your phone weekly? Is it a hobby? Entertainment? Does the tinfoil around it not keep out the government spyware?
Sorry to hear you're an old man with tons of oil stocks. The natural gas industry is going to continue to grow for decades, and you may never realize value recovery/growth from oil before you take that long dirt nap.
Disclaimer: I'm not thrilled about the breackneck expansion of U.S. natural gas exploitation.
This isn't a story about the science, it's about the provenance of some old rag, and a reminder that the chain of evidence matters.
The only people who should care are the posers and jerkoffs who like to trade on some accidental genetic connection to a dead king from an obsolete form of government. Isn't France on a republic or two beyond that one by now?
Your national review article lists more "be on the lookout" keywords that could trigger reviews of progress group applications than the study from your first post used, which claimed a disproportionate review of conservative groups' applications.
What you have done is cast doubt on the study that YOU cited, without showing any citation to an objective study using a more complete list of the keywords used by the IRS.
You do understand you just undercut your own argument, and bolstered my point that the study was a hatchet job, don't you?
You're still not getting it - the preconceptions of your politics won't let you get it. The republicans PLANNED this, every step of the way. That is beyond dispute, and what they are doing is not compromise. I won't repeat the reasoning from my previous post because you are beyond reason.
Enjoy the show.
...if a state was starting to get out of the "norm" considered by the rest of the country, information flow would correct the issue.
This is my quote of the day - it's funny as hell! Here's a little example about my favorite special needs child, Texas. They loves to kill the peoples in Texas (you know which people, of course).
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/03/us-usa-executions-texas-idUSBRE9920SG20131003
And this is WITH the federal controls over extreme mistreatment of citizens. Imagine what Texas would do WITHOUT that level of control! Oh, we actually do know - within 2 hours of the SCOTUS gutting of the Voting Rights Act, Texas reactivated their minority voting suppression laws.
"Information flow," he says! HIGH-larious!
They're not trying to change the ACA, they're trying to KILL it. Even when they *say* they just want some changes, their goal is to repeal the entire bill, but preventing it from taking effect until (they think) they get a majority in both houses and perhaps also the presidency.
If you think otherwise, you've either not been following the news, or you're deliberately fooling yourself. Do a search on the preparation that Ted Cruz, the Heritage Foundation, and lots of other parties did over the past six months or so. You can't "compromise" with someone who's trying to burn down your house.
It's funny to see all the time and thought(?) you're spending on a small side effect (the administration, I agree, is making it clearer what the shutdown means), and not complaining about the radical republicans who started this mess by attempting to blackmail the president into killing his own law, the ACA.
Oh, monuments closed to a couple of hundred vets, that's very sad. But the republicans' shutdown is affecting Meals on Wheels, which serves tens of thousands of elderly, including veterans. Here's one small piece of that - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=228551347
Oh, and WIC assistance is also shut down. Good thing Fox is calling this a government "slimdown" - those women, infants, and children could probably stand to lose a few pounds.
Why are you paying attention to the sideshow instead of the real problem?
I hope they do. Congress is not doing its job by passing piecemeal funding bills. They continue to hurt the country with those, especially as we approach the debt ceiling.
The republicans even admit they don't know exactly what they want to extort from the president to end this, but that now "it's about pride", and they have to get something.
Piecemeal funding of the government is the height of irresponsibility. No wait, it's the only the second highest level of irresponsibility - the height of irresponsibility was the deliberate shutting of the government by the republican extremists.
"Compromise." You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
Once again - the republicans have been planning this blackmail for MONTHS, with actual meetings, agendas, communication plans and talking points. They deliberately decided to sabotage the ACA by adding the poison pill that would defund it to the CR.
You can't "compromise" with someone who's trying to burn down your house. There's no question that this is not only the republicans' shutdown, they did this deliberately, with advance planning. They WANTED to do this.
I think it's likely that the president is making the point about what the republicans are doing by apply the letter of the law, and closing some things that could have been kept open (illegally). Yes, that's a partisan tactic, but guess what? This is politics. And it's not even remotely the same as the irresponsible tea party republicans who started this fire.
And in a couple of weeks, they're going to do it AGAIN when we reach the debt limit, and they continue the blackmail. They will refuse to pay for things for which they themselves already authorized the spending, and if they take it too close to the wire, like last time, they will damage the U.S. credit rating AGAIN, which will make it more expensive for us to borrow money, therefore increasing the deficit and the national debt.
You might think the republicans are fighting for you, but no, not even close. And yet you defend them.
It's possible your assertion is correct. However, the story in the link below describes a Republican study that came to the conclusion you claim, and pointed out how the study was flawed - it didn't even describe the timeframe examined, whether the applications in the study were the same ones reviewed by the people implicated in the "scandal", and only used one liberal keyword, "progressive", instead of say, "peace", as in "Americans for Peace".
Here's the study; http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/07/30/207080580/report-irs-scrutiny-worse-for-conservatives
Do you have a citation for any study that is not an obvious partisan hatchet job? Remember, these are the same people who inserted a poison pill for the ACA into unrelated budget bills, then called the resulting mess the "Obama Shutdown".
Is that any worse than an elected official espousing a "second amendment solution" for her opponent in the senatorial election? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/16/sharron-angle-floated-2nd_n_614003.html
And as for the "trade liberty for security" crowd, I suspect you're talking about the 80% of people who wanted modest commonsense background checks following one or another horrific mass shooting. Rest easy, you may not remember that the republican lapdogs thwarted the will of the people quite handily in that case.