How about this. You don't tell me what my personal medical choices will be, and I will keep my nose out of yours.
Really? Do you REALLY mean that? So, do we both agree that Obamacare (or any other Federal involvement in healthcare) needs to be repealed permanently? Because all these laws congress has passed over the years are EXACTLY you 'telling me what my personal medical choices will be.'
Additionally, if it's "her pussy, her choice" then don't come to me, the taxpayer, expecting me to pay for the abortion. I don't want anything to do with it... but if I'm paying for it you may absolutely expect me to have a say in what she can and can't do with her pussy.
No, you listen here, asshat. That 'radio shock jock' did NOT invent any stinking steaming pile of bullshit. Mark levin was talking about stories reported as fact in main-stream news sources such as the New York Times with headlines along the lines of: 'Wiretap Data Reveals Trump Had Contact with Russian Operatives'. So, which is it? Is the New York Times (and other main stream news outlets) bullshit? Or was the Obama administration spying on the opposition political party? Those are your choices. There are no others.
This appears to be one(?) of them...
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi......And if you can read and fully comprehend all that without, (A) Being a patent attorney, (B) Hiring a patent attorney, or (C) Having waaaaay more time on your hands than you probably should, you're doing better than I am.
-Sigmon
Apple overcame the problem that often drove me away from purchasing CDs from the music industry... Being forced to pay $12-18 for one or two songs I want and a bunch of junk I don't care about. Now I find this Apple Music junk popping up on my iPhone half the time when I, say, search my music library for a song. It's starting to get annoying and if they don't back-off they're going to kill their golden goose.
No... I'm trying desperately to get people to understand that Jim Crow was a GOVERNMENT problem. I'm not trying to get anybody 'off the hook'.
I've seen so many people blaming the 'Free-Market' for Jim Crow... and Jim Crow is about a far removed from a free market as one can get! You don't seem to have the mental capacity to understand what free market means.... it doesn't mean the rich and powerful people get the government to make laws in their favor! It means the government STAYS OUT OF IT (nearly) ALLTOGETHER and lets people freely make the decisions they wish to make.
NOTE: I do not argue for a 100% free market... That would be unreasonable. SOME government regulations on a market are desirable - but the goal _should_ be to keep that to a minimum.
The segregated South was NOT a free-market. The south was segregated BY LAW. Laws are enacted and enforced by GOVERNMENT... not a free market. You've heard the term 'Jim Crow', right? They were called 'Jim Crow LAWS'. Jim Crow was not instituted by the free market. It was government. Government FORCED business owners to have things like separate water fountains for blacks and whites. Absent these laws, _some_ may have still discriminated - but most likely would not have.
There is another word that belongs behind 'Jim Crow'... that word is LAWS. Jim Crow laws were passed by GOVERNMENT for force people and business-owners to discriminate - against their will. The business owner didn't have a choice but to have separate water fountains for white and colored people. THAT is NOT a free-market. Educate yourself.
THIS. Where does one draw the line, indeed? I have my opinion on which of your listed scenarios are reasonable or not.. as do you.. and the next guy. It is likely we all disagree. Which one is 'correct'? Who can say? This is why I would always rather er on the side of freedom when it comes to individuals and privately-owned corporations. What is it to me if person A or company B doesn't want to do business with me? Fine. I'll do business with somebody else... The story is different for publicly-owned corporations and government agencies. People like to trot out the term 'Jim Crow'... But they seldom mention the next word in the phrase... which is 'LAWS'. 'Jim Crow LAWS' were passed by government dictating that business MUST discriminate by having things like separate white and colored water fountains, separate white sections and colored sections in restaurants, etc. FAR from being responsible for these problems - Churches (religious people) got the ball rolling to abolish slavery in the western world... and indeed churches were first and foremost among the leaders of the civil rights movement in the U.S. These 'Religious Freedom' laws being passed bear NO resemblance to Jim Crow or other times of discrimination.
Anti-discrimination laws are not a problem -IF- the vast majority of the people and the culture already are of that mind-set. This is why legislatures pass them... because the people WANT them. The present quagmire in the U.S. comes from a tiny minority of the population attempting to hijack the court system into getting their preferred anti-discrimination ideas imposed as defacto law without having to win the hearts and minds of the general population. When unelected judges impose their arbitrary will on the people absent representation of any kind - regardless of the subject-matter - bad things are going to happen.
As I live in Arkansas I actually got around to reading the bill (HB 1228) this morning. Everything people are complaining about is complete FUD. It's really quite mundane... and LOTS of other states already have similar laws on the books. It _basically_ instructs the courts to take into consideration sincerely-held religious convictions in discrimination cases except where there is an impracticality in enforcing the laws without the state encroaching on them.
This does NOT mean that teh gheys will be denied service at restaurants.
It DOES mean that I may be spared legal consequences if I decline to build a gay porn website for somebody and am sued for discrimination.
I'm thinking that a physical token removed from the interior lock which disables the override function - to be carried with the pilot exiting the cockpit - would prevent this scenario. If one of the pilots needs to exit the cockpit at any point in the flight they simply remove the token or mechanism from the interior of the door that enables the pilot-override of somebody on the outside getting in. They take it with them - and when they return the re-insert it into the lock mechanism. This way, the absent pilot could always re-enter the cockpit when they were ready.
Alternatively, a special per-flight code chosen before takeoff by each pilot and known only to them could be used from the outside which would ALWAYS open the door... This would make the internal override an unnecessary function.
What you say is correct ONLY as it pertains to forcing the RETAILER to collect/pay the tax. The sales point must have what is legally referred to as 'nexus'. As I mentioned in another comment above, we always refer to it as a 'sales tax' but you'll note if you look into the legal-ease of the state codes it's actually a 'sales and use tax'. And, oh yes they can enforce a tax on purchases made in another state. Want proof? Try this: If you live in a state with a sales tax... go to a state without one and buy a vehicle. Bring it back to your state and get tags for it. Many of these states SHARE data on real-property sales like that. Eventually, I promise they'll try to collect the sales and use tax on your vehicle.
My guess is, yes. Look up the word 'nexus' as it pertains to taxation. Arguments could be made on either side of whether or not a data center constitutes as nexus, but you can bet that the Ohio law-makers who I'm sure would LOVE to get a share of that dough will fall on the side that gets them that share.
It's always amusing to me when people spout off stuff like this... "The God of the bible could have been a space alien"... and you think you're saying something profound. I don't think you understand or grasp the concept of God as described in the Bible. You are attacking YOUR concept of God - not what HE claims to be. Many of you have this concept of an old man in the sky with white hair and a long white beard throwing down lightning bolts and such... and humans have a bad habit of anthropomorphizing God. You have trouble conceiving the idea of God (rightly so) - and you ask questions like "If God created the universe then when was God created?" But when you ask questions like that - note that you have made an assumption... that assumption is that there was a TIME in which God did not exist.... But think.. think.. think.. You slashdotters are supposed to be more scientifically astute. We now know (thanks mostly to Einstein) that time and space are linked. They're not two different things. If God created the universe (space)... He must also have created TIME. Do you get that? Can you even conceive the idea? I'm not asking if you BELIEVE it... I'm asking if you can even conceive of it. All I'm saying is this: If you're going to argue against the concept of God the creator (and by all means, feel free).. please try to understand the concept of God as described in the Bible... and argue against that... not what church leaders or even Popes say. Of course, that's going to require you to actually put fourth a little effort: Read the Bible. Study the history of where it came from. Understand what it is - and what it's not. It's not a science text book. It doesn't have ALL the answers to everything. It IS a collection of history, laws, stories, parables, poetry and testimony to what people have witnessed. There's a great deal of mystery in that book... but that doesn't mean it's all invalid. (BTW: I think these 'creationists' that read the Genesis creation account as 6 literal 24-hour days are idiots. They don't understand what the bible is either.)
Again, you are incorrect. Regulation of industry is a form of control. And again you demonstrate the inadequacies of your logic by 'imagining' I believe things that I didn't say. I never argued for anarchy... which is what you seem to think I was saying.... No, your cute little rant here proves nothing. The point is - we are much closer to state control over industry than we were years ago... and yet the income gap grows larger and larger. This is inarguable. I'll thank you for admitting defeat now.
I'm afraid you are incorrect. There is one very important word you omitted (I presume intentionally) - and replaced with another to fit with your definition of capitalism. Like a good liberal, you twist the language or completely ignore words or the meaning of them to suit your political ideology. But I digress... In the strictest economic sense, capitalism is defined as that economic and political situation in which trade and industrial production are CONTROLLED by private owners and not by the state... not 'owned'.
If you're the kind of person that could, with a straight face, say that the U.S. government has LESS CONTROL over trade and industry as a whole than it did 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago then I say you are a liar and there is no truth in you. It's bewildering to me that the closer and closer we get to a system like you claim to want - the greater and greater the gap between the rich and the poor.. and you'll never ever admit no matter how much evidence is presented to you that it's your desired system that actually CAUSES that gap to become wider and wider.
Amen and Amen! I think these (potentially) well-meaning people that want to ban corporations from participating in any kind of political process don't really think their idea though all the way. They THINK they are promoting free-speech... but, in fact, they would simply silence somebody (or a group of people) with whom they disagree. The true test of whether or not one truly adheres to the concept of 'free speech' is his or her reaction when somebody expresses an idea or promotes something with which one disagrees.
I've been shouting this from the mountaintops on/. for years. Few people understand the concept and benefit of limited government. If government didn't have the power to regulate this or that, corporations wouldn't be buying it off. People seem to assume that political motivations are somehow natively nobler than that of business, but fail to realize they are often one and the same. Sadly I fear, even this clear example would not cure liberals of their stubbornness.
I agree there is not enough competition. What causes conservative-thinking people like myself to tear our hair out is when we read "The government should step in". What you seem to fail to realize is things are the way they are because government HAS stepped in. How else do you think these unimaginably large banking organizations got so big in the first place? How do you think they squash their competition? There is absolutely nothing wrong with capitalism at all... what we have here is something called crony-capitalism. Asking government to do something about it only invites more of it! We need less government involvement - not more (not none either).
Don't mean to turn the thread into a political battle... as it's off-topic. Sometimes I just can't let these "the government should do something" comments stand.
Sigh... Sometimes I don't know why I bother posting on/. anymore. I always end up having to deal with brat kids like you that think you're smart and go spouting off when you have no idea what you are talking about. It's as if you have some genetic need to be in an argument with somebody.
No... Pay attention, I'm educating you. ALL irrational numbers are necessarily infinite in concept - by definition. That's why they're called 'irrational'. Have you EVER actually calculated the circumference of a circle? (C = 2Pi*r) What value did you substitute for Pi in your calculator? 3.14? That's close but not Pi. How about 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399? No, that's closer but not Pi either. You can get a 'close enough' value for normal everyday purposes easily enough - but you will never be able to exactly calculate any formula that contains Pi because it's an infinitely repeating decimal. Still don't believe that irrational numbers are infinite? Grab a pen and paper. Convert the fraction 1/3 into a decimal number and write it down. Post the complete result here in this thread... I'll be here waiting so you can prove me wrong.
INDEED! I was thinking the same thing... Believing infinity can't be 'real' or doesn't exist (because we can't model it) is very similar to saying a circle can't be real or doesn't exist... Because a 'perfect' circle can't be described mathematically... without using something which represents an infinite value! (Pi) Yet I would hope no rational thinking human would make such a claim as circles do not exist.... They certainly do! It's just not something you can model perfectly. And just because we can't create a perfect model - or completely understand a thing or concept doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Slashdot Mirror
How about this. You don't tell me what my personal medical choices will be, and I will keep my nose out of yours.
Really? Do you REALLY mean that? So, do we both agree that Obamacare (or any other Federal involvement in healthcare) needs to be repealed permanently? Because all these laws congress has passed over the years are EXACTLY you 'telling me what my personal medical choices will be.'
Additionally, if it's "her pussy, her choice" then don't come to me, the taxpayer, expecting me to pay for the abortion. I don't want anything to do with it... but if I'm paying for it you may absolutely expect me to have a say in what she can and can't do with her pussy.
No, you listen here, asshat. That 'radio shock jock' did NOT invent any stinking steaming pile of bullshit. Mark levin was talking about stories reported as fact in main-stream news sources such as the New York Times with headlines along the lines of: 'Wiretap Data Reveals Trump Had Contact with Russian Operatives'. So, which is it? Is the New York Times (and other main stream news outlets) bullshit? Or was the Obama administration spying on the opposition political party? Those are your choices. There are no others.
This appears to be one(?) of them... http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi... ...And if you can read and fully comprehend all that without, (A) Being a patent attorney, (B) Hiring a patent attorney, or (C) Having waaaaay more time on your hands than you probably should, you're doing better than I am.
-Sigmon
Apple overcame the problem that often drove me away from purchasing CDs from the music industry... Being forced to pay $12-18 for one or two songs I want and a bunch of junk I don't care about. Now I find this Apple Music junk popping up on my iPhone half the time when I, say, search my music library for a song. It's starting to get annoying and if they don't back-off they're going to kill their golden goose.
Every... Day.... :-/
No... I'm trying desperately to get people to understand that Jim Crow was a GOVERNMENT problem. I'm not trying to get anybody 'off the hook'.
I've seen so many people blaming the 'Free-Market' for Jim Crow... and Jim Crow is about a far removed from a free market as one can get! You don't seem to have the mental capacity to understand what free market means.... it doesn't mean the rich and powerful people get the government to make laws in their favor! It means the government STAYS OUT OF IT (nearly) ALLTOGETHER and lets people freely make the decisions they wish to make.
NOTE: I do not argue for a 100% free market... That would be unreasonable. SOME government regulations on a market are desirable - but the goal _should_ be to keep that to a minimum.
Very clever.
The segregated South was NOT a free-market. The south was segregated BY LAW. Laws are enacted and enforced by GOVERNMENT... not a free market. You've heard the term 'Jim Crow', right? They were called 'Jim Crow LAWS'. Jim Crow was not instituted by the free market. It was government. Government FORCED business owners to have things like separate water fountains for blacks and whites. Absent these laws, _some_ may have still discriminated - but most likely would not have.
There is another word that belongs behind 'Jim Crow'... that word is LAWS. Jim Crow laws were passed by GOVERNMENT for force people and business-owners to discriminate - against their will. The business owner didn't have a choice but to have separate water fountains for white and colored people. THAT is NOT a free-market. Educate yourself.
THIS. Where does one draw the line, indeed? I have my opinion on which of your listed scenarios are reasonable or not.. as do you.. and the next guy. It is likely we all disagree. Which one is 'correct'? Who can say? This is why I would always rather er on the side of freedom when it comes to individuals and privately-owned corporations. What is it to me if person A or company B doesn't want to do business with me? Fine. I'll do business with somebody else... The story is different for publicly-owned corporations and government agencies. People like to trot out the term 'Jim Crow'... But they seldom mention the next word in the phrase... which is 'LAWS'. 'Jim Crow LAWS' were passed by government dictating that business MUST discriminate by having things like separate white and colored water fountains, separate white sections and colored sections in restaurants, etc. FAR from being responsible for these problems - Churches (religious people) got the ball rolling to abolish slavery in the western world... and indeed churches were first and foremost among the leaders of the civil rights movement in the U.S. These 'Religious Freedom' laws being passed bear NO resemblance to Jim Crow or other times of discrimination.
Anti-discrimination laws are not a problem -IF- the vast majority of the people and the culture already are of that mind-set. This is why legislatures pass them... because the people WANT them. The present quagmire in the U.S. comes from a tiny minority of the population attempting to hijack the court system into getting their preferred anti-discrimination ideas imposed as defacto law without having to win the hearts and minds of the general population. When unelected judges impose their arbitrary will on the people absent representation of any kind - regardless of the subject-matter - bad things are going to happen.
As I live in Arkansas I actually got around to reading the bill (HB 1228) this morning. Everything people are complaining about is complete FUD. It's really quite mundane... and LOTS of other states already have similar laws on the books. It _basically_ instructs the courts to take into consideration sincerely-held religious convictions in discrimination cases except where there is an impracticality in enforcing the laws without the state encroaching on them.
This does NOT mean that teh gheys will be denied service at restaurants.
It DOES mean that I may be spared legal consequences if I decline to build a gay porn website for somebody and am sued for discrimination.
I'm thinking that a physical token removed from the interior lock which disables the override function - to be carried with the pilot exiting the cockpit - would prevent this scenario. If one of the pilots needs to exit the cockpit at any point in the flight they simply remove the token or mechanism from the interior of the door that enables the pilot-override of somebody on the outside getting in. They take it with them - and when they return the re-insert it into the lock mechanism. This way, the absent pilot could always re-enter the cockpit when they were ready. Alternatively, a special per-flight code chosen before takeoff by each pilot and known only to them could be used from the outside which would ALWAYS open the door... This would make the internal override an unnecessary function.
What you say is correct ONLY as it pertains to forcing the RETAILER to collect/pay the tax. The sales point must have what is legally referred to as 'nexus'. As I mentioned in another comment above, we always refer to it as a 'sales tax' but you'll note if you look into the legal-ease of the state codes it's actually a 'sales and use tax'. And, oh yes they can enforce a tax on purchases made in another state. Want proof? Try this: If you live in a state with a sales tax... go to a state without one and buy a vehicle. Bring it back to your state and get tags for it. Many of these states SHARE data on real-property sales like that. Eventually, I promise they'll try to collect the sales and use tax on your vehicle.
My guess is, yes. Look up the word 'nexus' as it pertains to taxation. Arguments could be made on either side of whether or not a data center constitutes as nexus, but you can bet that the Ohio law-makers who I'm sure would LOVE to get a share of that dough will fall on the side that gets them that share.
Exactly. Although everybody refers to it as a 'sales tax'... It's actually called a 'sales and USE tax'.
It's always amusing to me when people spout off stuff like this... "The God of the bible could have been a space alien"... and you think you're saying something profound. I don't think you understand or grasp the concept of God as described in the Bible. You are attacking YOUR concept of God - not what HE claims to be. Many of you have this concept of an old man in the sky with white hair and a long white beard throwing down lightning bolts and such... and humans have a bad habit of anthropomorphizing God. You have trouble conceiving the idea of God (rightly so) - and you ask questions like "If God created the universe then when was God created?" But when you ask questions like that - note that you have made an assumption... that assumption is that there was a TIME in which God did not exist.... But think.. think.. think.. You slashdotters are supposed to be more scientifically astute. We now know (thanks mostly to Einstein) that time and space are linked. They're not two different things. If God created the universe (space)... He must also have created TIME. Do you get that? Can you even conceive the idea? I'm not asking if you BELIEVE it... I'm asking if you can even conceive of it. All I'm saying is this: If you're going to argue against the concept of God the creator (and by all means, feel free).. please try to understand the concept of God as described in the Bible... and argue against that... not what church leaders or even Popes say. Of course, that's going to require you to actually put fourth a little effort: Read the Bible. Study the history of where it came from. Understand what it is - and what it's not. It's not a science text book. It doesn't have ALL the answers to everything. It IS a collection of history, laws, stories, parables, poetry and testimony to what people have witnessed. There's a great deal of mystery in that book... but that doesn't mean it's all invalid. (BTW: I think these 'creationists' that read the Genesis creation account as 6 literal 24-hour days are idiots. They don't understand what the bible is either.)
Again, you are incorrect. Regulation of industry is a form of control. And again you demonstrate the inadequacies of your logic by 'imagining' I believe things that I didn't say. I never argued for anarchy... which is what you seem to think I was saying.... No, your cute little rant here proves nothing. The point is - we are much closer to state control over industry than we were years ago... and yet the income gap grows larger and larger. This is inarguable. I'll thank you for admitting defeat now.
How do you define, 'middle class'? And how are they 'already-hurting' in a way directly linked to the taxation they must endure?
I'm afraid you are incorrect. There is one very important word you omitted (I presume intentionally) - and replaced with another to fit with your definition of capitalism. Like a good liberal, you twist the language or completely ignore words or the meaning of them to suit your political ideology. But I digress... In the strictest economic sense, capitalism is defined as that economic and political situation in which trade and industrial production are CONTROLLED by private owners and not by the state... not 'owned'. If you're the kind of person that could, with a straight face, say that the U.S. government has LESS CONTROL over trade and industry as a whole than it did 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago then I say you are a liar and there is no truth in you. It's bewildering to me that the closer and closer we get to a system like you claim to want - the greater and greater the gap between the rich and the poor.. and you'll never ever admit no matter how much evidence is presented to you that it's your desired system that actually CAUSES that gap to become wider and wider.
Amen and Amen! I think these (potentially) well-meaning people that want to ban corporations from participating in any kind of political process don't really think their idea though all the way. They THINK they are promoting free-speech... but, in fact, they would simply silence somebody (or a group of people) with whom they disagree. The true test of whether or not one truly adheres to the concept of 'free speech' is his or her reaction when somebody expresses an idea or promotes something with which one disagrees.
It takes a long time to say anything in Old Entish. And we never say anything unless it is worth taking a long time to say.
I've been shouting this from the mountaintops on /. for years. Few people understand the concept and benefit of limited government. If government didn't have the power to regulate this or that, corporations wouldn't be buying it off. People seem to assume that political motivations are somehow natively nobler than that of business, but fail to realize they are often one and the same. Sadly I fear, even this clear example would not cure liberals of their stubbornness.
I agree there is not enough competition. What causes conservative-thinking people like myself to tear our hair out is when we read "The government should step in". What you seem to fail to realize is things are the way they are because government HAS stepped in. How else do you think these unimaginably large banking organizations got so big in the first place? How do you think they squash their competition? There is absolutely nothing wrong with capitalism at all... what we have here is something called crony-capitalism. Asking government to do something about it only invites more of it! We need less government involvement - not more (not none either). Don't mean to turn the thread into a political battle... as it's off-topic. Sometimes I just can't let these "the government should do something" comments stand.
Sigh... Sometimes I don't know why I bother posting on /. anymore. I always end up having to deal with brat kids like you that think you're smart and go spouting off when you have no idea what you are talking about. It's as if you have some genetic need to be in an argument with somebody.
No... Pay attention, I'm educating you. ALL irrational numbers are necessarily infinite in concept - by definition. That's why they're called 'irrational'. Have you EVER actually calculated the circumference of a circle? (C = 2Pi*r) What value did you substitute for Pi in your calculator? 3.14? That's close but not Pi. How about 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399? No, that's closer but not Pi either. You can get a 'close enough' value for normal everyday purposes easily enough - but you will never be able to exactly calculate any formula that contains Pi because it's an infinitely repeating decimal. Still don't believe that irrational numbers are infinite? Grab a pen and paper. Convert the fraction 1/3 into a decimal number and write it down. Post the complete result here in this thread... I'll be here waiting so you can prove me wrong.
INDEED! I was thinking the same thing... Believing infinity can't be 'real' or doesn't exist (because we can't model it) is very similar to saying a circle can't be real or doesn't exist... Because a 'perfect' circle can't be described mathematically... without using something which represents an infinite value! (Pi) Yet I would hope no rational thinking human would make such a claim as circles do not exist.... They certainly do! It's just not something you can model perfectly. And just because we can't create a perfect model - or completely understand a thing or concept doesn't mean it doesn't exist.