Has nothing to do with my response to banning key words on the Internet with a source outside the country. The people in other countries don't have a constitutional guarantee of speech.
Letting Saudi Arabia take them is a bad idea - Saudi Arabia sponsors terrorists. Their treatment of refugees would just radicalize them - they don't have to treat them any worse than most non-Saudi workers.
A wall between the US and Mexico won't work. As one border patrol agent said, the higher we build it, the bigger the ladder they bring. This doesn't mean that it's not possible to build an electronic wall to detect anyone crossing, and it would be cheaper.
Strict vetting works. Canada worked with UN agencies to vet people who had been in camps for years, and the 35,000 refugees that were admitted over a 6-month period seem to be working out well enough thatPrime Minister Trudeau is now working with the UN and George Soros to export Canada's refugee private sponsorship program to other countries.
Do you really believe that abolishing the second amendment will change anything? Ain't gonna happen. As for Trump's remark, the guy's a buffoon. If he were almost anyone else, Clinton wouldn't have a hope in hell of winning. He might very well become the next president, but presidents don't have much ability to do anything on their own, and this applies to both Clinton and Trump.
It would take a long time to get any case before the Supreme Court, and if I were living in Detroit I might want a firearm myself. On a practical note, there are too many firearms in the country to actually enforce a severe ban.
Instead, we should be pushing for better mental health programs, programs that get people out of poverty, and better access to education for all. That would reduce gun deaths without needing to go to the court, and would be a positive move for the whole country.
Of course I'm being sarcastic. I'm on record as saying gun control as practiced in other countries is impossible. However, if we did a better job on mental illness, we could eliminate the majority of gun deaths (which is by suicide by firearm). That is something we should all work for, for many reasons.
Thanks for the compliments. I've already said elsewhere that gun control such as is practiced in other countries is impossible in the United States. There are just too many guns out there, and there is no workable solution because you will never get all the states to work in concert. So whether the 2nd Amendment continues to exist or is repealed, nothing will change.
Hopefully eventually enough people will realize this and we can tone down the NRA-type craziness, and at least put in some controls, such as mandatory background checks and firearm registration. Neither one would interfere with people's right to own a firearm for legitimate reasons. Reducing poverty FOR ALL GROUPS, improved access to help for mental illnesses FOR ALL WHO NEED IT, and better education for all FOR ALL WHO WANT IT would also reduce the pool of people who resort to firearms, either for violence, or to commit suicide.
The majority of all firearm deaths are suicide by firearm. Passing laws won't change this, but those last three suggestions would reduce deaths by an important margin, and they don't infringe on anyone's rights. Unfortunately, a direct appeal to reason won't work or we'd already have these three in place for other reasons. If you've got any ideas on how to achieve this short of putting something in the water supply I'm all ears, because I'm all out.
So prevent it by banning all travel to places like Afghanistan. Take in the refugees, but don't let them go back and get indoctrinated. If they leave the US, revoke their citizenship and refuse all re-entry. THAT makes more sense than putting a wall up between the US and Mexico.
So when are you going to pass the Equal Rights Amendment to constitutionally guarantee equal rights for women? It's only been proposed since 1923. That's a longer delay than passing the 14th amendment.(by a year, so far). Not being wiling to guarantee rights to the majority of the population makes your whole political process look ridiculous in this day and age.
Well, they certainly showed that the 1st means nothing when it comes to their own interests (staying in power and not having to justify their illegal actions). Just ask Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange.
Much as I hate to defend either of the two bobble-heads, Trump did not make a veiled threat against Clinton. Saying "You're against guns? Why not see what happens when your secret service detail doesn't have any" is not a threat. It's a challenge to hypocrisy - that the little people should have fewer rights.
Of course, there's no possibility of having a rational law passed (or even a rational debate) on gun control in the US. That's a dog-whistle issue for both sides.
How about keeping them out of the hands of convicted felons who lost the right to have a firearm? Will the weak controls in place, anything is an improvement.
It wasn't the manufacturer who did the test, but is was on Epipen and Epipen Junior, stale-dated versus new purchased at a local pharmacy. Manufacturers generally give you their product when they want you to test it.
But I agree, people need to take more responsibility for their health. I have a sister with type 1 diabetes who refused to take her insulin for decades because "the needles hurt to much" and she "didn't believe in that stuff." She would boast about how high her sugar levels would get - 4 to 6 times the norm. Of course, it caught up to her and now she's stuck in a long-term care facility paralyzed on one side, mostly blind, with aphasia and vascular dementia.
She's probably going to die either there or in a similar facility, which was entirely predictable. She's the third of 6 girls, and I had her in the dead pool as #1 years ago. Quintuple bypass, strokes, other stuff... all predictable and all avoidable.
BTW - I noticed that you referred to me as some sort of trans advocate. I have a long history of pickets, sit-ins, going to court, being on TV and radio and print, even a hunger strike, in support of minority rights, including the English language minority here as well as the rights of the French majority to send their kids to English schools if the wanted to, against a church for trying to bribe me (I don't take bribes, and I was surprised they even thought of offering an "inducement" not to rock the boat), government waste, forced municipal mergers, and yes, trans rights.
Until recently, there were no laws against transsexuals using the women's bathrooms. This is a post-2000 phenomena. It's speculated that this is in reaction to gays and lesbians gaining the right to marry - people are now looking for a new target.
You sort of got it right. It's as I said in my last post: "But that's the nature of "progressivism", as the big problems are tackled you start making mountains out of molehills."
Progressives moved on from gay marriage to transsexuals. The North Carolina state law was in response to a city ordinance that "allows transgender people to use the bathroom corresponding to the gender with which they identify".
If someone no longer has a functioning penis and testicles, what harm is there in letting them use the women't washroom? Just what are you afraid of? Can't be them raping others and getting them pregnant with their demon seed. They're far more likely to get assaulted if you send them to the men's washroom, because lots of guys are into trans porn and "doing a transsexual" is on their bucket list, and others would feel it's their right to beat them up because of what they are.
WRT harassment, legally it makes no difference if the person was born female or became female. The same rules apply to both in the eyes of the law. Harassment is harassment, and not protected speech.
I agree, but I don't agree with your definition of "harassment", and the general approach to "harassment" is to take the first step and ask the person you considering "harassing" you to stop contacting you. I'm not emailing transsexuals or confronting them in the street with their original name. I completely reject your goals to broaden the scope of "harassment".
You are posting in a public forum which transsexuals read. I can guarantee that it's not just non-transsexuals who have read our back-and-forth. You have also already said that the reason you continue to refer to Chelsea Manning by her old male name is because that's how you first knew her when she got into the spotlight. You also said that transsexuals should be called by their old name and sex because they aren't really women, but men who have cut off their penis. It's obvious that you approve of this sort of trans-baiting because you're doing it right here, and by debating it, you are offering your encouragement to others to do this as well. In other words, you are suborning harassment based on sex.
As for the percentage of men who would date or marry a transsexual, many do without even knowing it. The reason the percentage isn't higher is because of a lack of supply to meet the demand.
Again, this "many". What percentage of men will date or marry a transsexual?
So sure, it's a small number, but in real terms that's still 315,000 in each category, or 630,000. That's more than the total population of Las Vegas, and way more than Pittsburgh or Boston, or the population of Wyoming.or Vermont..
So fucking what? Google tells me there are 318.9 million people in the United States as of 2014. A tiny percentage of a very big number can still look big, but it would be absolutely foolish to waste an abundance of time/energy/money on such a small percentage.
Let's take your line of reasoning further. By your thinking, the government shouldn't be spending money subsidizing the development and distribution of orphan drugs. Orphan drugs, in the US, are those developed for conditions that affect less than 200,000 people. There's a 50% tax credit for R&D costs, $30 million in grants for phase 1 and phase 2 trials, and other advantages granted to developers of orphan drugs. Is it a waste of money to find a treatment for a condition that affects less than 200,000 p
It's an operating system. Let them send someone to small claims court to argue that in each case individually. It would be cheaper just to settle for $1,000 and let them keep the computer. And the article you linked to calls bullshit on that claim.
Potential warranty problems: The language in some owner's manuals suggests that using an oil other than the one specified by the manufacturer will void the car's warranty. This is not the case, says Thom Smith, Valvoline's vice president of branded lubricant technology.
According to the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, the onus would be on GM or another automaker to prove that a non-manufacturer oil damaged the engine. If dealers deny the warranty claim without first investigating it, they are in violation of the act, Smith says.
Until recently, there were no laws against transsexuals using the women's bathrooms. This is a post-2000 phenomena. It's speculated that this is in reaction to gays and lesbians gaining the right to marry - people are now looking for a new target.
WRT harassment, legally it makes no difference if the person was born female or became female. The same rules apply to both in the eyes of the law. Harassment is harassment, and not protected speech.
As for the percentage of men who would date or marry a transsexual, many do without even knowing it. The reason the percentage isn't higher is because of a lack of supply to meet the demand.
After all, even 1:10000 is still a lot of people (and we know just by looking at surgeries performed in the US, ignoring those by US residents outside the country). The true number is now estimated to be 1:1000, plus 1:1000 who haven't yet sought treatment.. That's way more than the number of people who have gotten zika, and look at how much fuss that's causing.
So sure, it's a small number, but in real terms that's still 315,000 in each category, or 630,000. That's more than the total population of Las Vegas, and way more than Pittsburgh or Boston, or the population of Wyoming.or Vermont.. Look at all the synthetic outrage that's been directed at transsexual women over bathrooms for what you think is such a small number, and why the people who are so outraged don't say anything about transsexual men using men's bathrooms. Just more old-fashioned misogyny.
As for men dressing up as women always being for laughs, try watching Transparent. 23 awards, including two to Jeffrey Tambor, including his Emmy 3 days ago playing Mort who transitions to Maura. And then there's Orange is the new Black star Laverne Cox, who made the June 9th, 2014 cover of Time Magazine. Pretty main-stream not-for laughs stuff. Caitlyn Jenner's show also was not for laughs. And yet, you would also insist on calling them men in dresses, denying the legal realities.
Yes, there are bigger problems to tackle, so it's a wonder that people (including you) expend so much time putting down transsexuals and backing bathroom bills, and that others have to spend so much time and energy refuting the bigots who are in favor of discrimination based on birth sex instead of current sex (which renders birth sex irrelevant).
Many other modern countries don't get their panties in a twist over this. Take Canada -there's never been a law against transsexuals using the washroom of their new gender, even before they finish transitioning, and there have been judgments in favor of transsexuals when someone tries to force the issue.
Ireland lets adults self-declare their sex on all official documents, including birth certificates, passports, and drivers licenses, no questions asked, no supporting documents needed. Argentina, Malta, Colombia and Denmark have similar practices, though Denmark has a 6-month wait before it becomes official, for "reflection."
Australia just requires a doctor's note. New Zealand doesn't even require a doctor's note. Ditto for most Canadian provinces, though usually an affidavit from someone who has known the applicant for a year or more is required.
It's now mainstream because laws are being passed that benefit only transsexuals, allowing them to better lead their lives in their true identities. The US is way behind the times, like in so many other social aspects such as universal health care. Of the 25 wealthiest nations, only the US fails to provide universal health care. Invading other countries under false pretexts and undermining legitimate governments is more important to Americans, because you do it so much.
You can flash your TV, your phone, and the ECU in your car. Canonical/Ubuntu wasn't the first to get linux running on a TV, BTW. I don't know about bluray players, but probably, since they do accept updates.
Slashdot Mirror
Has nothing to do with my response to banning key words on the Internet with a source outside the country. The people in other countries don't have a constitutional guarantee of speech.
Letting Saudi Arabia take them is a bad idea - Saudi Arabia sponsors terrorists. Their treatment of refugees would just radicalize them - they don't have to treat them any worse than most non-Saudi workers.
A wall between the US and Mexico won't work. As one border patrol agent said, the higher we build it, the bigger the ladder they bring. This doesn't mean that it's not possible to build an electronic wall to detect anyone crossing, and it would be cheaper.
Strict vetting works. Canada worked with UN agencies to vet people who had been in camps for years, and the 35,000 refugees that were admitted over a 6-month period seem to be working out well enough thatPrime Minister Trudeau is now working with the UN and George Soros to export Canada's refugee private sponsorship program to other countries.
Do you really believe that abolishing the second amendment will change anything? Ain't gonna happen. As for Trump's remark, the guy's a buffoon. If he were almost anyone else, Clinton wouldn't have a hope in hell of winning. He might very well become the next president, but presidents don't have much ability to do anything on their own, and this applies to both Clinton and Trump.
It would take a long time to get any case before the Supreme Court, and if I were living in Detroit I might want a firearm myself. On a practical note, there are too many firearms in the country to actually enforce a severe ban.
Instead, we should be pushing for better mental health programs, programs that get people out of poverty, and better access to education for all. That would reduce gun deaths without needing to go to the court, and would be a positive move for the whole country.
Of course I'm being sarcastic. I'm on record as saying gun control as practiced in other countries is impossible. However, if we did a better job on mental illness, we could eliminate the majority of gun deaths (which is by suicide by firearm). That is something we should all work for, for many reasons.
Thanks for the compliments. I've already said elsewhere that gun control such as is practiced in other countries is impossible in the United States. There are just too many guns out there, and there is no workable solution because you will never get all the states to work in concert. So whether the 2nd Amendment continues to exist or is repealed, nothing will change.
Hopefully eventually enough people will realize this and we can tone down the NRA-type craziness, and at least put in some controls, such as mandatory background checks and firearm registration. Neither one would interfere with people's right to own a firearm for legitimate reasons. Reducing poverty FOR ALL GROUPS, improved access to help for mental illnesses FOR ALL WHO NEED IT, and better education for all FOR ALL WHO WANT IT would also reduce the pool of people who resort to firearms, either for violence, or to commit suicide.
The majority of all firearm deaths are suicide by firearm. Passing laws won't change this, but those last three suggestions would reduce deaths by an important margin, and they don't infringe on anyone's rights. Unfortunately, a direct appeal to reason won't work or we'd already have these three in place for other reasons. If you've got any ideas on how to achieve this short of putting something in the water supply I'm all ears, because I'm all out.
Constitutional rights only apply to people on US soil. Banning words such as jihad from communications entering the country is perfectly legal.
So prevent it by banning all travel to places like Afghanistan. Take in the refugees, but don't let them go back and get indoctrinated. If they leave the US, revoke their citizenship and refuse all re-entry. THAT makes more sense than putting a wall up between the US and Mexico.
So when are you going to pass the Equal Rights Amendment to constitutionally guarantee equal rights for women? It's only been proposed since 1923. That's a longer delay than passing the 14th amendment.(by a year, so far). Not being wiling to guarantee rights to the majority of the population makes your whole political process look ridiculous in this day and age.
The original definition of the militia was only white male property owners between the ages of 18 and 45.
Well, they certainly showed that the 1st means nothing when it comes to their own interests (staying in power and not having to justify their illegal actions). Just ask Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange.
Much as I hate to defend either of the two bobble-heads, Trump did not make a veiled threat against Clinton. Saying "You're against guns? Why not see what happens when your secret service detail doesn't have any" is not a threat. It's a challenge to hypocrisy - that the little people should have fewer rights.
Of course, there's no possibility of having a rational law passed (or even a rational debate) on gun control in the US. That's a dog-whistle issue for both sides.
Seeing that there's no longer a militia needed to repair foreign invaders, the 2nd no longer has justification.
How about keeping them out of the hands of convicted felons who lost the right to have a firearm? Will the weak controls in place, anything is an improvement.
Better hope they remain competitive - we don't want a duopoly between Apple and Google either (now I have to go bleach my brain)
It wasn't the manufacturer who did the test, but is was on Epipen and Epipen Junior, stale-dated versus new purchased at a local pharmacy. Manufacturers generally give you their product when they want you to test it.
But I agree, people need to take more responsibility for their health. I have a sister with type 1 diabetes who refused to take her insulin for decades because "the needles hurt to much" and she "didn't believe in that stuff." She would boast about how high her sugar levels would get - 4 to 6 times the norm. Of course, it caught up to her and now she's stuck in a long-term care facility paralyzed on one side, mostly blind, with aphasia and vascular dementia.
She's probably going to die either there or in a similar facility, which was entirely predictable. She's the third of 6 girls, and I had her in the dead pool as #1 years ago. Quintuple bypass, strokes, other stuff ... all predictable and all avoidable.
BTW - I noticed that you referred to me as some sort of trans advocate. I have a long history of pickets, sit-ins, going to court, being on TV and radio and print, even a hunger strike, in support of minority rights, including the English language minority here as well as the rights of the French majority to send their kids to English schools if the wanted to, against a church for trying to bribe me (I don't take bribes, and I was surprised they even thought of offering an "inducement" not to rock the boat), government waste, forced municipal mergers, and yes, trans rights.
Until recently, there were no laws against transsexuals using the women's bathrooms. This is a post-2000 phenomena. It's speculated that this is in reaction to gays and lesbians gaining the right to marry - people are now looking for a new target.
You sort of got it right. It's as I said in my last post: "But that's the nature of "progressivism", as the big problems are tackled you start making mountains out of molehills."
Progressives moved on from gay marriage to transsexuals. The North Carolina state law was in response to a city ordinance that "allows transgender people to use the bathroom corresponding to the gender with which they identify".
If someone no longer has a functioning penis and testicles, what harm is there in letting them use the women't washroom? Just what are you afraid of? Can't be them raping others and getting them pregnant with their demon seed. They're far more likely to get assaulted if you send them to the men's washroom, because lots of guys are into trans porn and "doing a transsexual" is on their bucket list, and others would feel it's their right to beat them up because of what they are.
WRT harassment, legally it makes no difference if the person was born female or became female. The same rules apply to both in the eyes of the law. Harassment is harassment, and not protected speech.
I agree, but I don't agree with your definition of "harassment", and the general approach to "harassment" is to take the first step and ask the person you considering "harassing" you to stop contacting you. I'm not emailing transsexuals or confronting them in the street with their original name. I completely reject your goals to broaden the scope of "harassment".
You are posting in a public forum which transsexuals read. I can guarantee that it's not just non-transsexuals who have read our back-and-forth. You have also already said that the reason you continue to refer to Chelsea Manning by her old male name is because that's how you first knew her when she got into the spotlight. You also said that transsexuals should be called by their old name and sex because they aren't really women, but men who have cut off their penis. It's obvious that you approve of this sort of trans-baiting because you're doing it right here, and by debating it, you are offering your encouragement to others to do this as well. In other words, you are suborning harassment based on sex.
As for the percentage of men who would date or marry a transsexual, many do without even knowing it. The reason the percentage isn't higher is because of a lack of supply to meet the demand.
Again, this "many". What percentage of men will date or marry a transsexual?
So sure, it's a small number, but in real terms that's still 315,000 in each category, or 630,000. That's more than the total population of Las Vegas, and way more than Pittsburgh or Boston, or the population of Wyoming.or Vermont..
So fucking what? Google tells me there are 318.9 million people in the United States as of 2014. A tiny percentage of a very big number can still look big, but it would be absolutely foolish to waste an abundance of time/energy/money on such a small percentage.
Let's take your line of reasoning further. By your thinking, the government shouldn't be spending money subsidizing the development and distribution of orphan drugs. Orphan drugs, in the US, are those developed for conditions that affect less than 200,000 people. There's a 50% tax credit for R&D costs, $30 million in grants for phase 1 and phase 2 trials, and other advantages granted to developers of orphan drugs. Is it a waste of money to find a treatment for a condition that affects less than 200,000 p
Not being a rabid fan of all things Facebook doesn't make me an elitist.
Slashdot seems to have eaten everything past the first double quote symbol. Sorry about that, chief.
The perks are crap.
It's like anything else - if you're stupid, or too lazy to do any research, or ask someone, you'll pay for it. Consider it a "Facebook Luser Tax". :-)
True, but there are enough phones that have been cracked that you don't have to give your money to the ones that haven't been.
Potential warranty problems: The language in some owner's manuals suggests that using an oil other than the one specified by the manufacturer will void the car's warranty. This is not the case, says Thom Smith, Valvoline's vice president of branded lubricant technology.
According to the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, the onus would be on GM or another automaker to prove that a non-manufacturer oil damaged the engine. If dealers deny the warranty claim without first investigating it, they are in violation of the act, Smith says.
Until recently, there were no laws against transsexuals using the women's bathrooms. This is a post-2000 phenomena. It's speculated that this is in reaction to gays and lesbians gaining the right to marry - people are now looking for a new target.
WRT harassment, legally it makes no difference if the person was born female or became female. The same rules apply to both in the eyes of the law. Harassment is harassment, and not protected speech.
As for the percentage of men who would date or marry a transsexual, many do without even knowing it. The reason the percentage isn't higher is because of a lack of supply to meet the demand.
After all, even 1:10000 is still a lot of people (and we know just by looking at surgeries performed in the US, ignoring those by US residents outside the country). The true number is now estimated to be 1:1000, plus 1:1000 who haven't yet sought treatment.. That's way more than the number of people who have gotten zika, and look at how much fuss that's causing.
So sure, it's a small number, but in real terms that's still 315,000 in each category, or 630,000. That's more than the total population of Las Vegas, and way more than Pittsburgh or Boston, or the population of Wyoming.or Vermont.. Look at all the synthetic outrage that's been directed at transsexual women over bathrooms for what you think is such a small number, and why the people who are so outraged don't say anything about transsexual men using men's bathrooms. Just more old-fashioned misogyny.
As for men dressing up as women always being for laughs, try watching Transparent. 23 awards, including two to Jeffrey Tambor, including his Emmy 3 days ago playing Mort who transitions to Maura. And then there's Orange is the new Black star Laverne Cox, who made the June 9th, 2014 cover of Time Magazine. Pretty main-stream not-for laughs stuff. Caitlyn Jenner's show also was not for laughs. And yet, you would also insist on calling them men in dresses, denying the legal realities.
Yes, there are bigger problems to tackle, so it's a wonder that people (including you) expend so much time putting down transsexuals and backing bathroom bills, and that others have to spend so much time and energy refuting the bigots who are in favor of discrimination based on birth sex instead of current sex (which renders birth sex irrelevant).
Many other modern countries don't get their panties in a twist over this. Take Canada -there's never been a law against transsexuals using the washroom of their new gender, even before they finish transitioning, and there have been judgments in favor of transsexuals when someone tries to force the issue.
Ireland lets adults self-declare their sex on all official documents, including birth certificates, passports, and drivers licenses, no questions asked, no supporting documents needed. Argentina, Malta, Colombia and Denmark have similar practices, though Denmark has a 6-month wait before it becomes official, for "reflection."
Australia just requires a doctor's note. New Zealand doesn't even require a doctor's note. Ditto for most Canadian provinces, though usually an affidavit from someone who has known the applicant for a year or more is required.
It's now mainstream because laws are being passed that benefit only transsexuals, allowing them to better lead their lives in their true identities. The US is way behind the times, like in so many other social aspects such as universal health care. Of the 25 wealthiest nations, only the US fails to provide universal health care. Invading other countries under false pretexts and undermining legitimate governments is more important to Americans, because you do it so much.
You can flash your TV, your phone, and the ECU in your car. Canonical/Ubuntu wasn't the first to get linux running on a TV, BTW. I don't know about bluray players, but probably, since they do accept updates.