This is actually on-topic, because Mormon theology requires there to be all sorts of habitable Earth-like worlds out there for good Latter Day Saints to become Gods for when they die.
"I'm fairly sure the bible never commands anybody to kill non-believers."
If you claim to be a Christian, you really should be more certain than this. In fact, I've found that most Christians have never even bothered to read most of the book that they profess to be The Word Of God. It's a bit like signing a contract that you haven't read... but this is a contract for your eternal soul.
It's ironic that these books targeted for censorship are available for the Kindle, given the fact that Amazon engages in censorship of the Kindle store.
One thing that CS and IT have in common is that if you ask a question that uses both terms, the IT and CS people will ignore the question and instead bicker over the definitions and specifications that distinguish "IT" from "CS".
You can get HIV without engaging in high-risk behavior. Just ask any woman who contracted the virus from monogamous sex with her husband... who was secretly having unsafe sex with other people.
There are countless studies which show that telling people to "just say no" has a lousy success rate. Telling people to take multiple risk-reduction measures -- a) say no, b) use condoms, c) limit the number of sex partners you have, d) get tested and take additional precautions if you're HIV+, e) et cetera -- has a much higher success rate, because they are more likely to actually do items b) and later, and collectively they are more effective for the larger population than just option a).
The only major exception I can think of is where the law prohibits marriage and those folks usually end up partnering up for life without the documents.
Not necessarily. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of opinion, but a marriage contract does have an effect on the likelihood of a couple staying together.
Aye, and if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.
The problem with this advice – and pretty much every other "just say no" solution to a social or medical problem – is that it ignores human nature... and the empirically documented fact that it simply doesn't work. Some people inevitably will have unprotected sex, will share needles, and will do everything else that they're told not to do. A "solution" that ignores this fact is one that is not 100% effective.
I think you misunderstand the use of "engine" in this device's name. It is not "powered" by anything; it is more like a slide-rule or abacus in principle, and operated by a simple hand crank.
"Tyrannies" created by laws which outlined a principle instead of detailing specifics? Cite examples, please (so we can laugh at them).
You have a point about overly broad and ambiguous legislation. But as you note, the courts in the U.S. throw those laws out, leaving those that are merely broad (like this) intact.
The fact that you lump "too many" and "too broad" laws in together shows a misunderstanding of the issue, because those are two different things pulling in opposing directions. When laws are broadly worded, they tend to be few in number (e.g. Moses' commandments). When they are obsessively specific, they fill up lengthy rule books (e.g. the Torah).
For laws that are not obviously unambiguous (like this one), those do get clarified into greater specifics, by the executive and judicial branches, which put more specific current interpretations of the law into writing in the form of regulations and court decisions. If you want to know whether you're violating a law or not, you can; you just need to do the research by consulting all three branches of government.
Yes, this is how sound legislation is always written. Rather than trying to spell things out in technical details that will immediately be obsolete and also provide a roadmap for how to get around the letter of the law, they use subjective terms like "unreasonable discrimination" to allow judicial rulings to define and redefine it over time in keeping with the spirit of the law.
The fact that Lucas had somewhat different goals for Star Wars than Roddenberry had for Star Trek doesn't make them "wholly different". It just means they're different on that point.
I know that: 1) You're stupid. The phrase "became very popular" does not mean that new material had to be produced during that time. But even so.... 2) You're ignorant. The Star Trek animated series and the first movie were both produced and released in the 1970s (to say nothing of numerous books).
Slashdot Mirror
This is actually on-topic, because Mormon theology requires there to be all sorts of habitable Earth-like worlds out there for good Latter Day Saints to become Gods for when they die.
You do realize that these challenges are often successful?
"I'm fairly sure the bible never commands anybody to kill non-believers."
If you claim to be a Christian, you really should be more certain than this. In fact, I've found that most Christians have never even bothered to read most of the book that they profess to be The Word Of God. It's a bit like signing a contract that you haven't read... but this is a contract for your eternal soul.
It's ironic that these books targeted for censorship are available for the Kindle, given the fact that Amazon engages in censorship of the Kindle store.
So they are examples of attempted censorship, not necessarily successful. It's still troublesome.
"...the Facebook obligation would make sign-up easier." ...for Spotify.
Hardly trolling; I think it's a good analogy.
These CEOs are one-in-a-million personality types, alright.
Much like serial killers.
This is one area where I'm inclined to blame it on corruption, not incompetence.
One thing that CS and IT have in common is that if you ask a question that uses both terms, the IT and CS people will ignore the question and instead bicker over the definitions and specifications that distinguish "IT" from "CS".
You can get HIV without engaging in high-risk behavior. Just ask any woman who contracted the virus from monogamous sex with her husband... who was secretly having unsafe sex with other people.
There are countless studies which show that telling people to "just say no" has a lousy success rate. Telling people to take multiple risk-reduction measures -- a) say no, b) use condoms, c) limit the number of sex partners you have, d) get tested and take additional precautions if you're HIV+, e) et cetera -- has a much higher success rate, because they are more likely to actually do items b) and later, and collectively they are more effective for the larger population than just option a).
Me? Promiscuous? Ha. Haha. HAHAHAHAHA!
Not necessarily. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of opinion, but a marriage contract does have an effect on the likelihood of a couple staying together.
Aye, and if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.
The problem with this advice – and pretty much every other "just say no" solution to a social or medical problem – is that it ignores human nature... and the empirically documented fact that it simply doesn't work. Some people inevitably will have unprotected sex, will share needles, and will do everything else that they're told not to do. A "solution" that ignores this fact is one that is not 100% effective.
Yeah, because that knowledge was so effective in nearly eradicating chlamydia, syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, trichomoniasis....
I think you misunderstand the use of "engine" in this device's name. It is not "powered" by anything; it is more like a slide-rule or abacus in principle, and operated by a simple hand crank.
"Tyrannies" created by laws which outlined a principle instead of detailing specifics? Cite examples, please (so we can laugh at them).
You have a point about overly broad and ambiguous legislation. But as you note, the courts in the U.S. throw those laws out, leaving those that are merely broad (like this) intact.
The fact that you lump "too many" and "too broad" laws in together shows a misunderstanding of the issue, because those are two different things pulling in opposing directions. When laws are broadly worded, they tend to be few in number (e.g. Moses' commandments). When they are obsessively specific, they fill up lengthy rule books (e.g. the Torah).
For laws that are not obviously unambiguous (like this one), those do get clarified into greater specifics, by the executive and judicial branches, which put more specific current interpretations of the law into writing in the form of regulations and court decisions. If you want to know whether you're violating a law or not, you can; you just need to do the research by consulting all three branches of government.
This legislative/judicial system of law is badly flawed.
But it's better than the alternatives.
Yes, this is how sound legislation is always written. Rather than trying to spell things out in technical details that will immediately be obsolete and also provide a roadmap for how to get around the letter of the law, they use subjective terms like "unreasonable discrimination" to allow judicial rulings to define and redefine it over time in keeping with the spirit of the law.
The fact that it's high in fat shouldn't be a problem: just produce a "skim" version of it.
What's your answer to "I want porn apps"?
Or the beginning. This will make it easier to illustrate to people the advantages of an open system such as Linux or BSD or Haiku...
The fact that Lucas had somewhat different goals for Star Wars than Roddenberry had for Star Trek doesn't make them "wholly different". It just means they're different on that point.
I know that:
1) You're stupid. The phrase "became very popular" does not mean that new material had to be produced during that time. But even so....
2) You're ignorant. The Star Trek animated series and the first movie were both produced and released in the 1970s (to say nothing of numerous books).