"they realized Oxygen isn't flammable and requires other flammable materials to burn"
I went back and re-read the article just to make sure and, yep, sure enough, it appears that they weren't in a pure oxygen environment, but rather were actually inside a spaceship made from various and sundry materials, most of which are sufficient fuel when surrounded by high-content oxygen gas.
The fuel is the spaceship and its contents: knobs, buttons, seat covers, clothes, hair, flesh, tools.
It doesn't extend to you. You aren't part of the sample.
The paper is important because in the event one of you decides the other sucks, then you have to go through an unpleasant, expensive and difficult legal process before your child can be deprived of married parents. That of course never applies if neither of you ever decides the other sucks. In the real world, a tiny minority of marriages have two people who never decide the other sucks; the paper is for the protection of the children (or maybe other assets) of the marriages not in that tiny minority.
Cheers to the hope that you are in the tiny minority. Good luck.
Hey, fellow married Slashdot men, have you ever tried to win an argument with your wife (or husband, I guess) by saying "No, because that's a logical fallacy!" It doesn't work on my wife.
I don't understand the proposed connection between marriage and Christianity. Marriage predates Christianity. It would be more correct -- though also wrong -- so say that Christianity is a marriage tradition.
The benefit of marriage is that when you want to separate you have to go stand in front of a judge. Because standing in front of a judge and filling out a bunch of paperwork are maybe paying lawyers is a huge pain in the ass, it provides a large incentive to remain partners.
This is a benefit when the continuation of the partnership has positive effects which extend beyond the two people involved. Specifically, then, marriage protects things outside of the partnership. It is a protection for significant assets that are affected when the relationship would otherwise end. The benefit is enjoyed by the married couple insofar as they value the external things protected.
What I'm saying is, marriage is good for the children of married people, because in order for the parents to separate they have to go through an unpleasant experience. Marriage can also be good for the protection of other large assets, perhaps a business or political careers or even something as small as a house. The same disincentive to separation can benefit the two people themselves who might otherwise lose long-term gains in favor of short-term gains.
That's the point of the piece of paper. On the other hand, if what you want is a relationship which is easy to exit, then you shouldn't get married.
It's hard to decide how the SCUSA would rule in this case because it is two big corporations fighting. If it were a corporation versus a human being then it would be an easy decision for the SCUSA, but I don't think five of those nine Justices have any compass for how to rule in cases between two corporations.
It'll be really confusing for them. Imagine the conversation:
Roberts: "Hey, Thomas, how are you going to vote?" Thomas: "I don't know, Johnny. I read the briefs and shat my pants when I saw that both litigants were corporations." Scalia: "Me too. I even asked both sides if maybe they were not a corporation, to simplify things, but it seems like they really are both corporations." Roberts: "Yeah I'm flummoxed. There's just no way to decide." Alito: "Maybe one of them is a small corporation? Then we could just round them down to 'human' and rule against them." Roberts: "No such luck. These are both huge corporations." Kennedy: "Hey, guys, I'm thinking maybe we could decide the case based on legal principles." Roberts:... Scalia:... Alito: "I don't get it. Legal principles? You mean like, we should check the documents of incorporation to see whether they are real corporations?" Kennedy: "No, I mean like, we should decide the case based on what the law says, and based on previous legal decisions in American courts." Roberts:... Scalia:... Alito: "I still don't get it. What does the law have to do with it?" Thomas: "Yeah, seriously Kennedy, we let you screw up the DOMA decision and we're not going to let you do it again. Is this 'API' thing religious? Maybe we could rule in favor of religion, if the other corporation is atheist." Alito: "No, apparently it's some kind of computery thing. I don't really know, I was doing a Sudoku during arguments." Roberts: "Look, maybe we should just defer to the appellate court." Scalia: "But the appellate court ruled against a corporation!" Roberts: "Yeah but they also ruled for a corporation." Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito: heads physically explode. Kennedy: "Ah, sheesh, they got blood on my robe." Ginsberg: "Anthony, come over here, maybe you can help Sonya and I write a decision." Kennedy: "I guess so, but your lap isn't as comfortable as Scalia's. Will you scratch me behind my ear?" Ginsberg: "I'll scratch you behind your ear but you have to promise to stop mentioning legal principles in front of the conservatives."
The article submitter is a troll: "Be careful next time when you exercise your first amendment rights."
Yeah, obviously, because lo and behold behavior has consequences. If you take an action it can have consequences. Whether you are legally allowed to take the action is irrelevant unless you are prosecuted for a crime.
You have the freedom to be a douchebag to your cable company, and thank goodness because I think we all agree they deserve it. But if you're a douchebag sometimes it comes back around to you.
Yep, it's true. It's a hard balance. I prefer to try to find that balance than to simply deny the legitimacy of regulation, but many people see it otherwise.
I'm not so much assuming it as going with the evidence, but you're right there are some (many) people who deny that. But for most of those deniers, it wouldn't matter anyway: they want no regulations even if it leads to death and destruction so the death and destruction are irrelevant to them. But not to me.
I respect all real operating systems by which I mean all Unix-like operating systems. Everything else is shit, by which I mean Windows is shit. Way back, the classic Mac system software was shit too.
My wife once asked me why Unix was so great. I told her it's hard to explain, but those guys at AT&T were just touched by God or something. They did it right. Other attempts at making general purpose operating systems have not been right.
The article specifically states "the researchers didn't mention how the malware spreads" so we don't know for sure, but if you're a sporting type then I'll bet you $5 that it isn't a virus. I bet it's a trojan. Trojans do not reflect on the security of a system.
Seriously. Once, in a pickle, I paid $30 ($30!!) for wifi for a one-night stay. We got my wife hooked up then I tried to connect -- NOPE! They wanted a second $30 for the second device.
I spoofed my wife's MAC address and swore off that shit hotel forever.
Yep. Totally agreed. Many times I have selected the higher quality lower cost hotel for exactly that purpose.
Here is what I expect from a hotel in priority order
* Separate bedroom from other guests (all hotels today offer this) * Clean bed (all hotels offer this) * Access to a bathroom (all hotels offer this) * Fast free wifi (only at cheap hotels) * Separate bathroom from other guests (all large hotels but not many small ones) * Parking spot (only at cheap hotels) *** this is where I stop giving a shit about amenities *** * Cookies * Free coffee * Concierge * Valet * Television * Cable television * Telephone
See how high up on the list wifi is? For some reason expensive hotels don't get it. How many of their guests don't want wifi? It must be less than one percent today. It is an absolute necessity and expensive hotels have their heads up their asses.
Only cheap hotels offer everything that I give a shit about so that's where I try to stay.
Another way is to have laws and fines that are sufficient to actually stop abuses, instead of burdening courts with remunerating for abuses after the fact. I prefer this way.
For instance, yeah my family could sue the maker of the tainted drug that kills me, or we could just have the nanny state certify drug manufacturers and then people don't have to die nearly so much in the first place. I think that is a better world so that's the one I support.
I'd call it malicious but that's an opinion word. Nobody, however, can deny that it was willful. They admitted they did it and said they think it's an okay thing to do; that is clearly willful. That's fine, they are being honest: they violated a rule which has the force of law because they don't think that rule should exist.
They can lobby for a change to the law/rule, and until then they should obey the law/rule. My only problem is, like always, the fine is 100x too small.
I came here today to promote prepaid. I had AT&T until they screwed me. Then I had Verizon until they screwed me. I like prepaid because it is completely impossible to get screwed. They cannot possibly overcharge me.
I pay $32 a month ($2 taxes) and I get what I need. I don't get a large amount of data and I don't need it because I'm always near wifi. I've never been anywhere near my data cap and if I were to hit it then I'd just simply stop getting data, which is what I want, instead of getting a huge unexpected phone bill. If I wanted more data I could call up and buy it right away, which I don't think will ever happen.
Frankly I use the voice and text so little that I think I could fit in the smaller plan for $14 a month. I might try that eventually. (This is PagePlus Wireless in Wisconsin.)
Slashdot Mirror
"they realized Oxygen isn't flammable and requires other flammable materials to burn"
I went back and re-read the article just to make sure and, yep, sure enough, it appears that they weren't in a pure oxygen environment, but rather were actually inside a spaceship made from various and sundry materials, most of which are sufficient fuel when surrounded by high-content oxygen gas.
The fuel is the spaceship and its contents: knobs, buttons, seat covers, clothes, hair, flesh, tools.
"Not because it is easy, but because it is hard!"
They'll still have to split assets and custody but they may not have to fill out legal paperwork, stand in front of a judge, pay lawyers, etc.
It doesn't extend to you. You aren't part of the sample.
The paper is important because in the event one of you decides the other sucks, then you have to go through an unpleasant, expensive and difficult legal process before your child can be deprived of married parents. That of course never applies if neither of you ever decides the other sucks. In the real world, a tiny minority of marriages have two people who never decide the other sucks; the paper is for the protection of the children (or maybe other assets) of the marriages not in that tiny minority.
Cheers to the hope that you are in the tiny minority. Good luck.
Pi is a certain number and there is a mathematical formula for it.
But marriage is not a number and I'm not aware of a mathematical formula for it.
Hey, fellow married Slashdot men, have you ever tried to win an argument with your wife (or husband, I guess) by saying "No, because that's a logical fallacy!" It doesn't work on my wife.
I don't understand the proposed connection between marriage and Christianity. Marriage predates Christianity. It would be more correct -- though also wrong -- so say that Christianity is a marriage tradition.
How do you fly two people to the Philippines for $1000?
He could do that. Or he could try not to get divorced.
The benefit of marriage is that when you want to separate you have to go stand in front of a judge. Because standing in front of a judge and filling out a bunch of paperwork are maybe paying lawyers is a huge pain in the ass, it provides a large incentive to remain partners.
This is a benefit when the continuation of the partnership has positive effects which extend beyond the two people involved. Specifically, then, marriage protects things outside of the partnership. It is a protection for significant assets that are affected when the relationship would otherwise end. The benefit is enjoyed by the married couple insofar as they value the external things protected.
What I'm saying is, marriage is good for the children of married people, because in order for the parents to separate they have to go through an unpleasant experience. Marriage can also be good for the protection of other large assets, perhaps a business or political careers or even something as small as a house. The same disincentive to separation can benefit the two people themselves who might otherwise lose long-term gains in favor of short-term gains.
That's the point of the piece of paper. On the other hand, if what you want is a relationship which is easy to exit, then you shouldn't get married.
If you like grid layouts then you can do grid layouts in CSS, can't you? What am I missing?
It's hard to decide how the SCUSA would rule in this case because it is two big corporations fighting. If it were a corporation versus a human being then it would be an easy decision for the SCUSA, but I don't think five of those nine Justices have any compass for how to rule in cases between two corporations.
It'll be really confusing for them. Imagine the conversation:
Roberts: "Hey, Thomas, how are you going to vote?" ... ... ... ...
Thomas: "I don't know, Johnny. I read the briefs and shat my pants when I saw that both litigants were corporations."
Scalia: "Me too. I even asked both sides if maybe they were not a corporation, to simplify things, but it seems like they really are both corporations."
Roberts: "Yeah I'm flummoxed. There's just no way to decide."
Alito: "Maybe one of them is a small corporation? Then we could just round them down to 'human' and rule against them."
Roberts: "No such luck. These are both huge corporations."
Kennedy: "Hey, guys, I'm thinking maybe we could decide the case based on legal principles."
Roberts:
Scalia:
Alito: "I don't get it. Legal principles? You mean like, we should check the documents of incorporation to see whether they are real corporations?"
Kennedy: "No, I mean like, we should decide the case based on what the law says, and based on previous legal decisions in American courts."
Roberts:
Scalia:
Alito: "I still don't get it. What does the law have to do with it?"
Thomas: "Yeah, seriously Kennedy, we let you screw up the DOMA decision and we're not going to let you do it again. Is this 'API' thing religious? Maybe we could rule in favor of religion, if the other corporation is atheist."
Alito: "No, apparently it's some kind of computery thing. I don't really know, I was doing a Sudoku during arguments."
Roberts: "Look, maybe we should just defer to the appellate court."
Scalia: "But the appellate court ruled against a corporation!"
Roberts: "Yeah but they also ruled for a corporation."
Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito: heads physically explode.
Kennedy: "Ah, sheesh, they got blood on my robe."
Ginsberg: "Anthony, come over here, maybe you can help Sonya and I write a decision."
Kennedy: "I guess so, but your lap isn't as comfortable as Scalia's. Will you scratch me behind my ear?"
Ginsberg: "I'll scratch you behind your ear but you have to promise to stop mentioning legal principles in front of the conservatives."
Without reading the article I'm going to guess the question "How Comcast Bought The Democratic Party" is answered by "With Money".
By the way I think your summary of the story (you are the submitter) is weak.
The article submitter is a troll: "Be careful next time when you exercise your first amendment rights."
Yeah, obviously, because lo and behold behavior has consequences. If you take an action it can have consequences. Whether you are legally allowed to take the action is irrelevant unless you are prosecuted for a crime.
You have the freedom to be a douchebag to your cable company, and thank goodness because I think we all agree they deserve it. But if you're a douchebag sometimes it comes back around to you.
No they didn't. That's not how informed consent works.
Yes, you have correctly described how fines work. The general intention is prevention not remuneration.
Sometimes there are other legal options other than civil suits, but that is the primary way.
Yep, it's true. It's a hard balance. I prefer to try to find that balance than to simply deny the legitimacy of regulation, but many people see it otherwise.
I'm not so much assuming it as going with the evidence, but you're right there are some (many) people who deny that. But for most of those deniers, it wouldn't matter anyway: they want no regulations even if it leads to death and destruction so the death and destruction are irrelevant to them. But not to me.
I respect all real operating systems by which I mean all Unix-like operating systems. Everything else is shit, by which I mean Windows is shit. Way back, the classic Mac system software was shit too.
My wife once asked me why Unix was so great. I told her it's hard to explain, but those guys at AT&T were just touched by God or something. They did it right. Other attempts at making general purpose operating systems have not been right.
The article specifically states "the researchers didn't mention how the malware spreads" so we don't know for sure, but if you're a sporting type then I'll bet you $5 that it isn't a virus. I bet it's a trojan. Trojans do not reflect on the security of a system.
Seriously. Once, in a pickle, I paid $30 ($30!!) for wifi for a one-night stay. We got my wife hooked up then I tried to connect -- NOPE! They wanted a second $30 for the second device.
I spoofed my wife's MAC address and swore off that shit hotel forever.
Yep. Totally agreed. Many times I have selected the higher quality lower cost hotel for exactly that purpose.
Here is what I expect from a hotel in priority order
* Separate bedroom from other guests (all hotels today offer this)
* Clean bed (all hotels offer this)
* Access to a bathroom (all hotels offer this)
* Fast free wifi (only at cheap hotels)
* Separate bathroom from other guests (all large hotels but not many small ones)
* Parking spot (only at cheap hotels)
*** this is where I stop giving a shit about amenities ***
* Cookies
* Free coffee
* Concierge
* Valet
* Television
* Cable television
* Telephone
See how high up on the list wifi is? For some reason expensive hotels don't get it. How many of their guests don't want wifi? It must be less than one percent today. It is an absolute necessity and expensive hotels have their heads up their asses.
Only cheap hotels offer everything that I give a shit about so that's where I try to stay.
Yeah that's one way.
Another way is to have laws and fines that are sufficient to actually stop abuses, instead of burdening courts with remunerating for abuses after the fact. I prefer this way.
For instance, yeah my family could sue the maker of the tainted drug that kills me, or we could just have the nanny state certify drug manufacturers and then people don't have to die nearly so much in the first place. I think that is a better world so that's the one I support.
I'd call it malicious but that's an opinion word. Nobody, however, can deny that it was willful. They admitted they did it and said they think it's an okay thing to do; that is clearly willful. That's fine, they are being honest: they violated a rule which has the force of law because they don't think that rule should exist.
They can lobby for a change to the law/rule, and until then they should obey the law/rule. My only problem is, like always, the fine is 100x too small.
I came here today to promote prepaid. I had AT&T until they screwed me. Then I had Verizon until they screwed me. I like prepaid because it is completely impossible to get screwed. They cannot possibly overcharge me.
I pay $32 a month ($2 taxes) and I get what I need. I don't get a large amount of data and I don't need it because I'm always near wifi. I've never been anywhere near my data cap and if I were to hit it then I'd just simply stop getting data, which is what I want, instead of getting a huge unexpected phone bill. If I wanted more data I could call up and buy it right away, which I don't think will ever happen.
Frankly I use the voice and text so little that I think I could fit in the smaller plan for $14 a month. I might try that eventually. (This is PagePlus Wireless in Wisconsin.)
Prepaid means no more getting screwed.