"If you don't like the terms, you are free to not accept them but then you also may not use the state's roads."
Drink the Kool-Aid much? The "state's roads" are part of the commons. They belong to everyone. The illusion that the state has to somehow grant me the privilege of being on public property is an outrageous fabrication. (Hint: Where is the public land where it's not a "privilege" to be there, in your estimation? Oh right, there isn't any...)
So, why don't you go out in the street and dg up "your" part? Ditto for "public lands" like BLM land, National Forrests, National Parks, National Monuments, the cpital, the White House, etc. Just walk right into the White House and say you want to stay in "your" part. Better yet, try it with a nuclear sub or an aircraft carrier.
The answer is that it is commonly accepted that government, on whatever level, "owns" and thus controls these properties. You can protest all you want that you are just taking "your" piece of whatever public property but the cop and the judge and your jailor won't care. I don't agree with governemnt controling the roads, buildings, etc. but I won't try any of the above.
So, go take a big hit of your hard core, libertarian Kool-Aid and then knock yourself out seizing back your property from the government. I'll quietly work at convincing people that the government shouldn't be in the business of running all of these properties. If you're lucky, you'll at least have the satisfaction of serving your time in a privately run prison.
Driving is not a constitutionally protected right. Most states issue drivers licenses as granting the driver the privilege of being allowed to drive on public (i.e., government built and owned) roads. If you don't like the terms, you are free to not accept them but then you also may not use the state's roads.
DUI checkpoints have only been ruled unconstitutional when it was shown that cars being stopped were driven by members of identifiable ethnic groups. The stop itself was not unconstitutional but the uneven application of who got stopped violated "equal protection under the law."
Choice one: BitCoins are a legitimate currency and are recognized as such by the U.S. government. What he's doing isn't illegal unless they are.
Choice two: Physical BitCoins are novelties sort of like the commemorative coins minted by Franklin Mint. What he's doing isn't illegal unless what Franklin Mint does is illegal.
Interesting. I had kind of absorbed what I thought was the meaning over time. Mainly from people I talked to who apparently shared the same misconception. That is, people would say they were agnostic with something like, "I don't believe in any specific religion. I'm an agnostic." Their usage of agnostic was more one of knowing which religion was correct was the issue.
One reason I enjoy doing crossword puzzles is I frequently find out that that there are other meanings to words I thought I knew or, like this, my understanding of the meaning was not correct.
Actually, you really need to look up the definition of agnosticism. Loosely, agnosticism is the belief in a divine being but not a specific religion (god exists but is unknowable). Lack of belief is, well, lack of belief.
Belief in atheism is a belief. Accepting that there is no god based on rational thought is atheism without a belief system. Huge difference. So, if you don't mind a double negative, I don't believe that there is no god. I also don't believe that there is a god. In fact, I don't BELIEVE anything with regard to the existance or non-existence of a god. I accept based on rational thought and my perception of objective reality that no such thing as a god exists (although I maintain a scientific doubt about this since there is absolutely no objective evidence to support the conclusion either way).
Excellent response. I was trying to come up with a way of explaining that atheism is not a belief system. It's an absence of belief in a god; nothing more, nothing less. Very different than saying, "I believe that there is no god."
For me, I'm a rational objectivist so I believe in objective reality as perceived by my (hopefully) rational mind. My atheism is a result of this belief; not a belief in atheism.
Lots of contradictions and double standards there. You've barely scratched the surface.
Personally, I wish that no woman would ever decide to have an elective abortion. On the other hand, I have enough trouble running my own life to take the freedom to make that decision away from her. So, I stay out of it.
There is a much better argument that a fetus is a person and deserves protection under the law but the anti-abortion types haven't managed to get that idea recognized by the courts or enacted as law through the ballot box. I don't agree with their argument or what the anti-abortion types are trying to do by making it but I can still see some validity to their argument. Given that the courts have considered whether a fetus is a person from the moment of conception and said "no", I don't see the courts granting "personhood" to chimpanzees.
O/T: This does give rise to an amusing situation. The folks who push "personhood" for a fetus would probably vehemently oppose granting the same designation to a chimpanzee (fundamentalists see man as on a whole different level than other animals). Likewise, the people pushing personhood for chimps would be some of the more liberal types and would probably be very "pro-choice".
My Northrop-Grumman stock (401-K) has almost doubled over the last year. I don't consider NOC to be high risk. S&P 500 (rollover IRA from 401-K) is up just under 29% for the year. Again, not high risk.
Pretty on the nose there. The headline asks "This time it's different?" The answer is "yes, this time the employees aren't seeing any of the money"
Meaning they're actually getting paid instead of getting worthless stock options that supposedly will be worth a bazillion dollars when the firm IPOs (I've got lots of pretty wallpaper from the previous bubble to remind me NOT to go for stock options).
Try an S&P 500 index fund at either Fidelity or Vanguard. Average rate of return over the past 100+ years for the S&P 500 has been around 10%. That includes both the Great Depression and the recent recession. Not sexy but just keeps churning out money. I recommend the funds at those specific firms because they both have extremely low management fees (less that 0.1%).
I stay away from ETFs. They are a neat idea but the trading costs can easily eat up any profits you make. It costs me just the management fee for my S&P 500 index fund.
All of the companies listed in the article are small companies that do strictly commercial software development. I don't see any numbers for the really big commercial software companies like IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, etc. Likewise, I don't see any numbers for the big aerospace companies like Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop-Grumman, Lockheed, CSC, BAE, etc. Big companies and, especially, big companies that work on government contracts are much more likely to have affirmative action policies and specifically recruit women and minorities. Chances are you would see much higher percentages of women working at these companies and it only takes a couple of 100,000+ employee companies to totally swamp the small fry that are in the current survey.
I would like to see a break down of the numbers by ethnic group and, especially, ethnic group and native born. Many of ills of adulthood can be traced to things like childhood malnutrition, lack of sanitation and exposure to various diseases, etc. Even things as mundane as having a smokey cook stove/fire inside the house. Lots of people who immigrate to Europe from other parts of the world do so to escape these. Unfortunately, they can't always escape the legacy.
But how would a traditional relational database scale to the 1 billion, or 1,000 billion users, huh? Did you think about the need to future-proof the application?
Current population of the U.S. is a little over 300 million. That includes children, people who have company provided health insurance, etc. who don't need to access HealthCare.gov so that the number of users of HealthCare.gov is expected to be about 30 to 45 million people.
The only way HealthCare.gov would need to support 1 billion or more users would be if we inflicted it on the China or India. That could lead to war or poor technical support and customer service. Although the later does raise an intereting question of who does someone at a call center call when they need technical support? Likewise, the population of the planet is between 7 and 8 billion. For the 1,000 billion users are you planning on also providing health insurance to E.T?
Is to switch to having a "box" of B-52s long stick the area instead of having a drone fire a couple of hellfires at the specific house or vehicle.
A few of those and maybe then the bleeding hearts would quit complaining about the drone strikes. Ditto for any compaints about the miniscule collateral damage from the drone strike.
Slashdot Mirror
"If you don't like the terms, you are free to not accept them but then you also may not use the state's roads."
Drink the Kool-Aid much? The "state's roads" are part of the commons. They belong to everyone. The illusion that the state has to somehow grant me the privilege of being on public property is an outrageous fabrication. (Hint: Where is the public land where it's not a "privilege" to be there, in your estimation? Oh right, there isn't any...)
So, why don't you go out in the street and dg up "your" part? Ditto for "public lands" like BLM land, National Forrests, National Parks, National Monuments, the cpital, the White House, etc. Just walk right into the White House and say you want to stay in "your" part. Better yet, try it with a nuclear sub or an aircraft carrier.
The answer is that it is commonly accepted that government, on whatever level, "owns" and thus controls these properties. You can protest all you want that you are just taking "your" piece of whatever public property but the cop and the judge and your jailor won't care. I don't agree with governemnt controling the roads, buildings, etc. but I won't try any of the above.
So, go take a big hit of your hard core, libertarian Kool-Aid and then knock yourself out seizing back your property from the government. I'll quietly work at convincing people that the government shouldn't be in the business of running all of these properties. If you're lucky, you'll at least have the satisfaction of serving your time in a privately run prison.
Cheers,
Dave
You mean like DUI checkpoints?
Driving is not a constitutionally protected right. Most states issue drivers licenses as granting the driver the privilege of being allowed to drive on public (i.e., government built and owned) roads. If you don't like the terms, you are free to not accept them but then you also may not use the state's roads.
DUI checkpoints have only been ruled unconstitutional when it was shown that cars being stopped were driven by members of identifiable ethnic groups. The stop itself was not unconstitutional but the uneven application of who got stopped violated "equal protection under the law."
Cheers,
Dave
...
Tomorrow's headlines: US ARMY DEPLOYS JAPANESE LASERS INTO FLORIDA TO QUELL REBELLIOUS FLORIDIANS!
You'd be surprised how much it hurts when some little old lady violently runs into you with her walker.
Cheers,
Dave
Choice one: BitCoins are a legitimate currency and are recognized as such by the U.S. government. What he's doing isn't illegal unless they are.
Choice two: Physical BitCoins are novelties sort of like the commemorative coins minted by Franklin Mint. What he's doing isn't illegal unless what Franklin Mint does is illegal.
You can't have it both ways.
Cheers,
Dave
RTFS - Read the f-ing summary
Cheers,
Dave
Go with my second option and have a nice glass of wine with your pasta.
Cheers,
Dave
Interesting. I had kind of absorbed what I thought was the meaning over time. Mainly from people I talked to who apparently shared the same misconception. That is, people would say they were agnostic with something like, "I don't believe in any specific religion. I'm an agnostic." Their usage of agnostic was more one of knowing which religion was correct was the issue.
One reason I enjoy doing crossword puzzles is I frequently find out that that there are other meanings to words I thought I knew or, like this, my understanding of the meaning was not correct.
Cheers,
Dave
Actually, you really need to look up the definition of agnosticism. Loosely, agnosticism is the belief in a divine being but not a specific religion (god exists but is unknowable). Lack of belief is, well, lack of belief.
Belief in atheism is a belief. Accepting that there is no god based on rational thought is atheism without a belief system. Huge difference. So, if you don't mind a double negative, I don't believe that there is no god. I also don't believe that there is a god. In fact, I don't BELIEVE anything with regard to the existance or non-existence of a god. I accept based on rational thought and my perception of objective reality that no such thing as a god exists (although I maintain a scientific doubt about this since there is absolutely no objective evidence to support the conclusion either way).
Cheers,
Dave
Excellent response. I was trying to come up with a way of explaining that atheism is not a belief system. It's an absence of belief in a god; nothing more, nothing less. Very different than saying, "I believe that there is no god."
For me, I'm a rational objectivist so I believe in objective reality as perceived by my (hopefully) rational mind. My atheism is a result of this belief; not a belief in atheism.
Cheers,
Dave
I firmly and passionately believe in the flying spaghetti monster. Anyone who doesn't will be damned to eternally eating badly cooked pasta.
OK. Don't buy that one, eh?
I'll go along with W.C. Fields, "Everyone should believe in something. I believe I'll have another drink."
Cheers,
Dave
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/02/japanese-submarine-world-war-ii_n_4375090.html
You cannot flunk the dolts because, "it might damage their self-esteem."
Deal with it.
Cheers,
Dave
Babies aren't really self-aware until somewhere around 1-2 years of age, but infants are still protected as people.
I've known some chronological adults who don't pass the "self-awareness" test. On the other hand, my cat seems to be very self-aware.
Cheers,
Dave
Lots of contradictions and double standards there. You've barely scratched the surface.
Personally, I wish that no woman would ever decide to have an elective abortion. On the other hand, I have enough trouble running my own life to take the freedom to make that decision away from her. So, I stay out of it.
Cheers,
Dave
There is a much better argument that a fetus is a person and deserves protection under the law but the anti-abortion types haven't managed to get that idea recognized by the courts or enacted as law through the ballot box. I don't agree with their argument or what the anti-abortion types are trying to do by making it but I can still see some validity to their argument. Given that the courts have considered whether a fetus is a person from the moment of conception and said "no", I don't see the courts granting "personhood" to chimpanzees.
O/T: This does give rise to an amusing situation. The folks who push "personhood" for a fetus would probably vehemently oppose granting the same designation to a chimpanzee (fundamentalists see man as on a whole different level than other animals). Likewise, the people pushing personhood for chimps would be some of the more liberal types and would probably be very "pro-choice".
Cheers,
Dave
My Northrop-Grumman stock (401-K) has almost doubled over the last year. I don't consider NOC to be high risk. S&P 500 (rollover IRA from 401-K) is up just under 29% for the year. Again, not high risk.
Cheers,
Dave
Pretty on the nose there. The headline asks "This time it's different?" The answer is "yes, this time the employees aren't seeing any of the money"
Meaning they're actually getting paid instead of getting worthless stock options that supposedly will be worth a bazillion dollars when the firm IPOs (I've got lots of pretty wallpaper from the previous bubble to remind me NOT to go for stock options).
cheers,
Dave
Try an S&P 500 index fund at either Fidelity or Vanguard. Average rate of return over the past 100+ years for the S&P 500 has been around 10%. That includes both the Great Depression and the recent recession. Not sexy but just keeps churning out money. I recommend the funds at those specific firms because they both have extremely low management fees (less that 0.1%).
I stay away from ETFs. They are a neat idea but the trading costs can easily eat up any profits you make. It costs me just the management fee for my S&P 500 index fund.
Cheers,
Dave
All of the companies listed in the article are small companies that do strictly commercial software development. I don't see any numbers for the really big commercial software companies like IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, etc. Likewise, I don't see any numbers for the big aerospace companies like Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop-Grumman, Lockheed, CSC, BAE, etc. Big companies and, especially, big companies that work on government contracts are much more likely to have affirmative action policies and specifically recruit women and minorities. Chances are you would see much higher percentages of women working at these companies and it only takes a couple of 100,000+ employee companies to totally swamp the small fry that are in the current survey.
Cheers,
Dave
I would like to see a break down of the numbers by ethnic group and, especially, ethnic group and native born. Many of ills of adulthood can be traced to things like childhood malnutrition, lack of sanitation and exposure to various diseases, etc. Even things as mundane as having a smokey cook stove/fire inside the house. Lots of people who immigrate to Europe from other parts of the world do so to escape these. Unfortunately, they can't always escape the legacy.
Cheers,
Dave
and if your tea party then grammar is optional.
and if you're tea party then grammar is optional. (Fixed that for you)
Apparently, if you're a /.er, grammar is optional.
Cheers,
Dave
I like it.
Cheers,
Dave
Usually, it's a requirement (or, in the case of HeathCare.gov, several requirements).
Cheers,
Dave
But how would a traditional relational database scale to the 1 billion, or 1,000 billion users, huh? Did you think about the need to future-proof the application?
Current population of the U.S. is a little over 300 million. That includes children, people who have company provided health insurance, etc. who don't need to access HealthCare.gov so that the number of users of HealthCare.gov is expected to be about 30 to 45 million people.
The only way HealthCare.gov would need to support 1 billion or more users would be if we inflicted it on the China or India. That could lead to war or poor technical support and customer service. Although the later does raise an intereting question of who does someone at a call center call when they need technical support? Likewise, the population of the planet is between 7 and 8 billion. For the 1,000 billion users are you planning on also providing health insurance to E.T?
Cheers,
Dave
Is to switch to having a "box" of B-52s long stick the area instead of having a drone fire a couple of hellfires at the specific house or vehicle.
A few of those and maybe then the bleeding hearts would quit complaining about the drone strikes. Ditto for any compaints about the miniscule collateral damage from the drone strike.
Cheers,
Dave