If you "create a religion", then it's not a religion and you are lying.
As opposed to the ones we have, which started out as someone creating a religion? Following that logic, all religions are lies, and should therefore be disregarded entirely (which actually sounds about right to me)
Yesterday: Palm is EVIL! They're forcing us through a proprietary app catalog, and ruling out choice and freedom and forcing developers to play by their rules! Down with Palm! Today: Palm is EVIL! By letting people download from anywhere, they're not checking these apps for safety before people can download them, which will infest the Pre with malware! Down with Palm!
Meet the new Slashdotters, same as the old Slashdotters.
What will you do when there's nowhere else to go to?
Then it's off to the liquor store, where I buy beer and a few bottles of wine for a fraction of what it costs me at the bar, and invite people over.
The number of smokers + the number of non-smokers who will tolerate smokers is much larger than the number of people who will not (or cannot, due to allergies and such) tolerate smokers. If there are no regulations on smoking, then it simple makes good financial sense to allow smoking in your restaurant, and that leads to practically every place you would want to go to being full of smoke.
You pretty much just said it yourself, what you like isn't popular enough to sustain a business (smoke free bars/restaurants), so you want a law to get your way. I'm not buying it. There are plenty of things I like that aren't profitable enough to sustain a business on. I'm not going to demand a law that creates those businesses just 'cause I like'em.
However, if the cigarettes had been taxed at manufacture source, rather than being marked for export and therefore 0% tax, the scam wouldn't have been possible.
That might work for the EU, but in the US the taxes most noticed are state taxes, not federal. New Jersey is not able to tax all of the cigarettes made in South Carolina.
You could argue that in this case, the black market would begin to grow it's own tobacco in illegal farming operations akin to cannabis cultivation now.
In the US, I don't have to argue any such thing. Currently, as in right now, not in theory, organized crime is getting heavily involved in the cigarette business. This is creating violence and law enforcement problems that would not exist with a more reasonable state sales tax.
I approve of smoking bans. If eaters of transfats vomited all over me in every restaurant, I'd probably approve of transfat bans too.
I don't approve of either, but that's because I don't like legislation telling business owners how to run their places in circumstances like this. As long as I know what I'm in for (smoking, barfing transfat eaters, whatever), it's my choice whether or not to go into that place. Hell, if you want to open a bar where people piss on the floor, go crazy, I just won't go there. If I don't want to go to a smokey bar, I'll go somewhere else, but I don't feel I have the right to tell the bar-owner that he can't decide whether to allow smoking or not.
Another common claim from the economically illiterate is "taxes don't work to lower consumption, people will just spend more!". Right, so if the tax on a packet of cigarettes were $100, everyone would just pay that, rather than switching to some other vice?
I'll take option C, the black market. Even without taxes at an absurd $100/pack, we're seeing violent drug dealers moving into the tobacco trade, taking what was a perfectly normal, legitimate business and turning it into a new criminal enterprise. This ends up denying the state its tax-money, increases costs (and risk) for law-enforcement and adds the risk of physical violence towards people who would otherwise not be in harms way.
Many jobs in the U.S. are "at will employment. While there are exceptions, an employer can fire you "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all".
The main selling point of the Pre is WebOS. Sure, the iTunes synch was a nice little extra, but I used that feature once and pretty much forgot about it. Of the other Pre owners I've run into, iTunes was pretty much a non-issue.
You are right though in that Palm shouldn't have even bothered including, let alone publicizing a hack that could be so easily disabled.
I'm so sick of this shit. Times are the same as ever for everyone who still has a job.
Unless you've had your hours cut back, or lost your bonuses, or had to skip a yearly raise, or had to take a pay-cut, or had to take an unpaid vacation (furlough), or had to work extra hours to make up for the three people who used to do the job you're doing by yourself now for the same money you always got, or saw your commissions drop by half, or had to pay more for your health benefits due to company cutbacks (effectively a pay-cut).........
There are plenty of ways that times are tougher for people now. For everyone? No, but for a pretty substantial number they are.
get dirty, get cuts and scrapes and bruises, find themselves in difficult situations, get filthy and yes, even get lost. They're even supposed to lose at games, and join competitions where everyone doesn't get a trophy.
Just out of curiosity, how does this tracker stop them from any of these things?
As for the tracker thing: Little Billy is out playing, and is supposed to "be home by dark" Let's assume he doesn't show up "by dark": With tracker - His mom or dad would wait a reasonable amount of time, check his location, and go tell him he's late and get his ass home. Without tracker: His mom our dad wait's a reasonable amount of time, then walks around the neighborhood looking for him, then gets in the car and drives around for a while, before getting a phone-call from the other parent saying "Yep, he just got home, he was playing video games at Johnny's house and didn't know it was already dark".
Difference? Mom and dad don't have to waste half their evening looking for little Billy, and nobody's bloodpressure spikes into the red. Other than that, there's no real difference between outcomes.
Nifty, but opposing the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act" in a state senate is not the same as "some who support "abortions" within the first 6 months after the infant as left the womb.".
Obama was apparently uncomfortable with the state bill, and says he was okay with the Federal version. None of this, unless you're a lunatic fringe anti-abortion wingnut, suggests that anyone is in favor of killing a 5 month old baby and calling it an abortion, unless of course you're using a definition of "5 months old" that starts at conception, rather than birth.
but there are some who support "abortions" within the first 6 months after the infant as left the womb.
Citation seriously needed. I'm unaware of any reputable "pro-choice" group that supports "abortion", otherwise known as premeditated murder, for 5 month old babies.
Why should muscles be one of the things to do the difference?
Narrow focus much? It was an arbitrary choice for the sake of an example. It could just as well have been moviestar good looks, perfect hair or a ferrari. The point was that the girl in the example liked muscle-bound fratboys, and not awkward nerds.
It's more like this:
somewhat-fit-geek: Hi really-hot-chick, sup? really-hot-chick: *fake shock* Are you looking at my chest? You perv! My eyes are up here! *giggle* somewhat-fit-geek: Maybe you should.. you know.. put on some clothes.. Whatever *turns around to discuss thoroughly geeky stuff that makes the bimbo feel dumb/left out* really-hot-chick: GIEF ATTENTION PLEX! TELL ME I AM SPECIAL, SO I CAN FEEL GOOD ABOUT MY SHALLOW SELF!
You should have named the guy in your scenario social-retard, weird-asexual or jerk-with-an-inferiority-complex. What you just described is a guy going up to a hot girl, receiving a positive and flirty response after getting her attention, and then insulting her for no apparent reason, thus guaranteeing that he'll have plenty of time to play WoW that night 'cause he ain't getting laid.
Unschoolers that I know, and since I am one, I know a lot of them, are every one of them is very conscience of socializing.
I was a lot more open to the idea of "unschooling" before I read this tortured sentence. Really, if they sent words to Guantanamo to be questioned, you'd be the person standing in the water-boarding room waiting for them.
You're both missing the point. Of course they dress that way to attract attention, it's just that the attention they want isn't from YOU. If you watch the whole girl-drama thing in it's entirely you'd see something like this:
awkwardNerd: Hi really-hot-chick, how are you today? really-hot-chick: Oh my GOD! Are you looking at my chest? You pervert! My eyes are up here! awkwardNerd: I...um, no, I....gah. (awkwardNerd retreats against the onslaught of really-hot-chick's righteous fury) 22 seconds later: muscle-guy-fratboy: Hey really-hot-chick, look at you! Niiiiiiiiiice! really-hot-chick: awwe, muscle-guy-fratboy, you big jerk (said with a smile and a forward-lean exposing even more cleavage)
They want to be noticed, they're just not always happy with who notices them.....
That's a common misconception really. The road to Hell is paved with frozen door-to-door salesmen. On weekends many of the younger demons go ice-skating down it.
Where you're going off track though, is your right to free speech means that the government will not stop you from expressing your views. He wasn't dragged away by the police and shipped to a gulag in Wyoming because of what he was saying. Nothing in the right to freedom of speech protects you from twerpy and rude college kids engaging in their own brand of exuberant and misguided protest.
In the case you described it was the ultra-PC kids, but if this guy tried to speak at a headbangers club they would have called him names and laughed him off the stage too. The problem was that they didn't care what he was saying, they were only interested in playing their part, in this case they were acting out the role of "passionate idealists who were out to stick it to the man". In other words, they only showed up to yell at him.
Where did you get the idea that there are only two parties? There already *are* a "plethora of parties". Almost nobody is interested in what they have to say. Part of the fun of a representative democracy is that the biggest groups get the biggest say as far as who gets elected goes. Simple fact is, most people are either Republicans or Democrats, and have little use for the others. If you want one of the other parties to gain ground, work to help make them popular. It's long, hard, thankless work, that will probably not yield any results any time soon, maybe not even in your lifetime, but that's the way it works.
Ask instead why my ballot only essentially has a row A and row B. Why not row A through ZZZ with all possible combinations.
What would be the point? As it is now, you need to show at least enough support to be a viable candidate. If you don't have that support before election day, you're simply not going to win. I'd love to see more options, and I wouldn't weep at all if the idea of major political parties went away, but it does make sense to limit the ballot to declared candidates with actual support, rather than just hand people a phone-book sized ballot and saying "go crazy"
Slashdot Mirror
As opposed to the ones we have, which started out as someone creating a religion? Following that logic, all religions are lies, and should therefore be disregarded entirely (which actually sounds about right to me)
Yesterday: Palm is EVIL! They're forcing us through a proprietary app catalog, and ruling out choice and freedom and forcing developers to play by their rules! Down with Palm!
Today: Palm is EVIL! By letting people download from anywhere, they're not checking these apps for safety before people can download them, which will infest the Pre with malware! Down with Palm!
Meet the new Slashdotters, same as the old Slashdotters.
Then it's off to the liquor store, where I buy beer and a few bottles of wine for a fraction of what it costs me at the bar, and invite people over.
You pretty much just said it yourself, what you like isn't popular enough to sustain a business (smoke free bars/restaurants), so you want a law to get your way. I'm not buying it. There are plenty of things I like that aren't profitable enough to sustain a business on. I'm not going to demand a law that creates those businesses just 'cause I like'em.
That might work for the EU, but in the US the taxes most noticed are state taxes, not federal. New Jersey is not able to tax all of the cigarettes made in South Carolina.
In the US, I don't have to argue any such thing. Currently, as in right now, not in theory, organized crime is getting heavily involved in the cigarette business. This is creating violence and law enforcement problems that would not exist with a more reasonable state sales tax.
I don't approve of either, but that's because I don't like legislation telling business owners how to run their places in circumstances like this. As long as I know what I'm in for (smoking, barfing transfat eaters, whatever), it's my choice whether or not to go into that place. Hell, if you want to open a bar where people piss on the floor, go crazy, I just won't go there. If I don't want to go to a smokey bar, I'll go somewhere else, but I don't feel I have the right to tell the bar-owner that he can't decide whether to allow smoking or not.
Maybe at least one bottled water companies thinks it's customers are naivE. Purely the product of backwards thinking I suppose......
I'll take option C, the black market. Even without taxes at an absurd $100/pack, we're seeing violent drug dealers moving into the tobacco trade, taking what was a perfectly normal, legitimate business and turning it into a new criminal enterprise. This ends up denying the state its tax-money, increases costs (and risk) for law-enforcement and adds the risk of physical violence towards people who would otherwise not be in harms way.
High "sin-taxes" are just prohibition-light.
Many jobs in the U.S. are "at will employment. While there are exceptions, an employer can fire you "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all".
Poisson statistics?
Sounds fishy to me......
The main selling point of the Pre is WebOS. Sure, the iTunes synch was a nice little extra, but I used that feature once and pretty much forgot about it. Of the other Pre owners I've run into, iTunes was pretty much a non-issue.
You are right though in that Palm shouldn't have even bothered including, let alone publicizing a hack that could be so easily disabled.
Unless you've had your hours cut back, or lost your bonuses, or had to skip a yearly raise, or had to take a pay-cut, or had to take an unpaid vacation (furlough), or had to work extra hours to make up for the three people who used to do the job you're doing by yourself now for the same money you always got, or saw your commissions drop by half, or had to pay more for your health benefits due to company cutbacks (effectively a pay-cut).........
There are plenty of ways that times are tougher for people now. For everyone? No, but for a pretty substantial number they are.
Just out of curiosity, how does this tracker stop them from any of these things?
As for the tracker thing: Little Billy is out playing, and is supposed to "be home by dark" Let's assume he doesn't show up "by dark":
With tracker - His mom or dad would wait a reasonable amount of time, check his location, and go tell him he's late and get his ass home.
Without tracker: His mom our dad wait's a reasonable amount of time, then walks around the neighborhood looking for him, then gets in the car and drives around for a while, before getting a phone-call from the other parent saying "Yep, he just got home, he was playing video games at Johnny's house and didn't know it was already dark".
Difference? Mom and dad don't have to waste half their evening looking for little Billy, and nobody's bloodpressure spikes into the red. Other than that, there's no real difference between outcomes.
Where is the problem in this?
Nifty, but opposing the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act" in a state senate is not the same as "some who support "abortions" within the first 6 months after the infant as left the womb.".
Obama was apparently uncomfortable with the state bill, and says he was okay with the Federal version. None of this, unless you're a lunatic fringe anti-abortion wingnut, suggests that anyone is in favor of killing a 5 month old baby and calling it an abortion, unless of course you're using a definition of "5 months old" that starts at conception, rather than birth.
Citation seriously needed. I'm unaware of any reputable "pro-choice" group that supports "abortion", otherwise known as premeditated murder, for 5 month old babies.
Apple is never going to get significant market share until OSX versions of these popular applications are available.
Narrow focus much? It was an arbitrary choice for the sake of an example. It could just as well have been moviestar good looks, perfect hair or a ferrari. The point was that the girl in the example liked muscle-bound fratboys, and not awkward nerds.
You should have named the guy in your scenario social-retard, weird-asexual or jerk-with-an-inferiority-complex. What you just described is a guy going up to a hot girl, receiving a positive and flirty response after getting her attention, and then insulting her for no apparent reason, thus guaranteeing that he'll have plenty of time to play WoW that night 'cause he ain't getting laid.
I was a lot more open to the idea of "unschooling" before I read this tortured sentence. Really, if they sent words to Guantanamo to be questioned, you'd be the person standing in the water-boarding room waiting for them.
You're both missing the point. Of course they dress that way to attract attention, it's just that the attention they want isn't from YOU. If you watch the whole girl-drama thing in it's entirely you'd see something like this:
awkwardNerd: Hi really-hot-chick, how are you today?
really-hot-chick: Oh my GOD! Are you looking at my chest? You pervert! My eyes are up here!
awkwardNerd: I...um, no, I....gah. (awkwardNerd retreats against the onslaught of really-hot-chick's righteous fury)
22 seconds later:
muscle-guy-fratboy: Hey really-hot-chick, look at you! Niiiiiiiiiice!
really-hot-chick: awwe, muscle-guy-fratboy, you big jerk (said with a smile and a forward-lean exposing even more cleavage)
They want to be noticed, they're just not always happy with who notices them.....
That's a common misconception really. The road to Hell is paved with frozen door-to-door salesmen. On weekends many of the younger demons go ice-skating down it.
Where you're going off track though, is your right to free speech means that the government will not stop you from expressing your views. He wasn't dragged away by the police and shipped to a gulag in Wyoming because of what he was saying. Nothing in the right to freedom of speech protects you from twerpy and rude college kids engaging in their own brand of exuberant and misguided protest.
In the case you described it was the ultra-PC kids, but if this guy tried to speak at a headbangers club they would have called him names and laughed him off the stage too. The problem was that they didn't care what he was saying, they were only interested in playing their part, in this case they were acting out the role of "passionate idealists who were out to stick it to the man". In other words, they only showed up to yell at him.
English? Oh, you mean you're a UKian.....
shouldn't that be "lolol wud u like fries wit taht?"
I trusted your information more when I thought it was from House.....
Where did you get the idea that there are only two parties? There already *are* a "plethora of parties". Almost nobody is interested in what they have to say. Part of the fun of a representative democracy is that the biggest groups get the biggest say as far as who gets elected goes. Simple fact is, most people are either Republicans or Democrats, and have little use for the others. If you want one of the other parties to gain ground, work to help make them popular. It's long, hard, thankless work, that will probably not yield any results any time soon, maybe not even in your lifetime, but that's the way it works.
What would be the point?
As it is now, you need to show at least enough support to be a viable candidate. If you don't have that support before election day, you're simply not going to win.
I'd love to see more options, and I wouldn't weep at all if the idea of major political parties went away, but it does make sense to limit the ballot to declared candidates with actual support, rather than just hand people a phone-book sized ballot and saying "go crazy"