I see a revolution or civil war happening long before a political solution would ever arise.
Perhaps - the problem, though, is that revolutioneries never can agree. For each Bolshevik, there will be a Trotskyist, Maoist and whatever they call themselves these days, and that is only on the left; there will be an equal number of Christian radicals, Fascists, Neo-Nazis, White-Supremacists, etc etc. The amazing thing is, they will all claim to be fighting for "The Freedom of The People" - for given values of "Freedom" and "People", of course.
The way I see it - never, bloody mind these ID schemes. You may be uncomfortable knowing that you don't have full and exclusive control over the information you regard as your own, but that is a simple fact of life, and the only thing one can do about it is to learn to live with it.
There are far more important problems to address; not least of which is the problem with what Capitalism or Consumerism has been allowed to turn into. I don't believe what people really want is some sort of "Total Freedom" - they just want to be allowed to live their lives without unreasonable restrictions like the ever more idiotic attempts at keeping people from copying digital media, or drug laws that are founded in fearful views from a previous century rather than scientific knowledge.
There is no real, perfect freedom - it is like art: in the 60es and 70es there was a trend towards completely free art, which turned out to be things like paint being splashed idly on canvases and so on; now, perhaps it has been realised that before you can truly express yourself with freedom, you need to learn a lot of technique and disciplin, which you can then transcend. I think this teaches us a valid lesson about society too: that you can't have true freedom, unless you have good discipline (ie "Laws"); it is simply a matter of finding the right balance - what we vaguely call "fairness".
I would say that anything is better, at least in terms of expressiveness; even JCL has richer syntax.
I can understand why you like DOS, in a way - back in the day, I used to know the BIOS and the DOS interrupts by heart. Still, now I use ksh - I wouldn't be surprised if you can get that (or bash, which is a tolerable alternative) for DOS. There is a lot more to learn, but then, of course, it lets you do much more too.
Oh, and upgrade from DOS - Linux is what DOS aspired to, originally, as evidenced by the old XENIX system.
just because something happened in the past doesn't mean that it will happen again. let's take a hard look at the facts and the numbers, and not be frightened by prophecy. statistics tell the story that you want to tell.
You are right, of course. So, why don't you jump out of tall building? Just because things have fallen downwards in the past doesn't mean that you can't stay up if you try.
First they treat him like shit, then they dig him out of the ground and force their belated praise on his remains in order to look good. Maybe I am just being petty, but I can't help feeling that this sort of propaganda stunt is tasteless to say the least.
Like, if I for years beat up my wife, then suddenly one day felt I'd better show some remorse and be a 'good husband'. The word 'shameless' springs to mind.
So what you are saying is that because certain legal cases support this principle, that makes it the law? I can't claim to have studied American law in any detail, but have always assumed that the separation of power was fundamental to any modern, democratic society. If what you are implying is correct, then that is not true for the US - since in that case judges also become legislators.
In my own coutry, the role of a judge is to interpret existing law, taking into account precedent, and to rule accordingly; the purpose, of course, being that a judge shouldn't be allowed to make it up as he goes along. A very valid point, in my view.
Does a person lose their right to anonymous speech merely because someone SUSPECTS that they might someone else?
I wasn't aware that any person had the right to anonymous speech. This is from Wikipedia:
Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak without censorship and/or limitation. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on "hate speech".
Can you show me anywhere in relevant legislation where it says that a person has the right to be anonymous? Freedom of expression is a legal guarantee that you can't be prosecuted under criminal law for expression you views - but you still need to have the courage to express your views in the open, as opposed to behind people's back.
You may be thinking of "whistleblowing" - but there is no universal, legal protection for whisteblowers. Perhaps there ought to be, but that is beside the point - the fact remains that there isn't.
China is not trying to 'kill' America. They are simply trying to steal from it. And that potentially amounts to a slow and painful 'death'.
One of the things I object to is this use of black-and-white, categorical language: "China steals from America" - this is something that alludes to a them-and-us mindset, which is simply wrong. Take another example - recently, when Mossad agents made false, British passports and used them in connection with an assasination, was that an example of "the nation of Israel stealing from Great Britain"? Or was it a case of "agents in the Israel Secret Service going over the line"? Since UK regards Israel as a friendly nation, their criticism was that Israel didn't keep their minions under control. Ans since we have good reasons to regard China as a friendly nation (as you say, they are not out to kill us), the assumption here should be that industrial espionage is not the hostile acts of China against America, but acts carried out by individuals not being kept on a sufficiently tight leash.
China is still a developing nation - the incredible, financial growth rate is a symptom of this, and it is also one of the reasons why things are not nearly as much under the control of the law as we are used to in the West. The idea that China is a closely supervised society where you can't fart without at least ten government departments recording it is nothing more than nonsense.
So is industrial espionage by individuals in China a big problem? Possibly - I wouldn't know. I don't think that is our real problem; the financial crisis shows that our biggest problem is the lack of decency and ethical standards that seems ingrained in American-style capitalism, combined with the lassez-faire ideology that has led to lack of regulations. The oil-leak in the Gulf is another good example. This kind of shit has to stop, otherwise we will end up as the run-down neighborhood of the world.
The author didn't state it elegantly, but he still made the point -- Chinese industrial espionage is very real, is here now, and it is state-sponsored.
I don't think he - or you - has any point besides the obvious. Do you really imagine that guys like you are the only ones that know about these things? Or that China is the only country that does it?
There is no need to go looking for enemies in China or Russia - they are big nations, and they have a clear and obvious interest in not upsetting the balance in the world too much; if one of the big nations were to fail, it would hurt every nation in the world, so America, Russia, China etc are going to protect each others' interests and stability, at least against major upsets. Would China benefit from America suddenly being relegated to the bottom? Of course not - what would happen to their exports and the stability of their currency? No, China is America's friend, at least in the same sense that your business partners are your friends.
The real enemies of America (and China, Russia,...) are the crackpots who are willing to throw away their own life to hurt you, followed closely by conspiracy theorists, that keep dreaming up sensational "threats", but somehow miss the real ones.
So, how do you know that you are not a conspiracy theorist? Simple: if you are willing to change your opinion in the light of evidence, then you are not one.
... require a 1-to-1 ratio for women's and men's restrooms...
It seems like a very small problem to try to fix by law; which is not to say that it may not be important. Still, I read an article once, in a mathematical journal, no less, that worked on this problem of why there always is a long queue outside the ladies' when there is hardly any by the gets'. It turns out that what makes the whole difference is that men stand and women sit, if you know what I mean. It takes a little bit longer for a woman, and that is enough to make that difference; so to solve the problem, there needs to more loos for women than men - I don't remember the ratio, but it is probably the Golden one, all things considered.
This is of course an example from queue theory and chaos; another one is the situation where the traffic grinds to a halt on the motorway for no obvious reason. It turns out that it has a lot to do with lorries overtaking, which forces smaller cars to brake, which causes people further back to brake harder, etc etc all the way down a standstill.
Kagan argued in the government's brief that speech was entitled to no First Amendment protection if its harms outweigh its benefits: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs." Kagan did not argue the case before the Court.
I feel that the term "Freedom of Speech" gets overused, misused and abused just about all the time, nowadays. The danger of this is that it loses its real, and very important meaning and becomes something like a buzzword used by the chronic whiners as an excuse for everything.
To me, at least, Freedom of Speech means simply a guarantee that you will not face criminal charges only for expressing your political or religious views, full stop. This is obviously of fundamental importance in any society, not least in a democratic one. As far as I can see, what this lady says is, that we have to take the consequences of what people say into consideration, which is not so far from what appears to be the mainstream view - I mean, what if somebody feels very strongly that he should be the emperor of America and that he is right to incite violent uprisings and random destruction? It is certainly a political view, and as the examples of Hitler and Mussolini show, they may even be rather successful.
She also argued that prosecutors who deliberately manufacture evidence to convict (by definition) innocent people should not be civilly liable for their actions. I don't have great hopes that she'd side with individuals when it most matters.
I tend to agree - this kind of malpractise should be settled in the criminal court, not in a civil one.
Think of it this way, if the government had no concern for marriage and only "cared" about civil unions, what issue would it be what the sexes of the two parties are?
You want to "marry" a man or woman or child or goat or rock (or a mix), that's between you and the church. Everything else is a contract, let the lawyers fight over it.
What a curious distinction - surely all a marriage is, is a contract, a civil union, if you like? Whether people choose to ask their god(s) for blessing of the union is an individual choice; but the main point of marriage is that it is a recognized, legal form with tangible consequences, as it clarifies things like custodial rights, inheritance issues, legal procedures in case of divorce etc etc.
It is tragic that it is necessary to talk about gay rights at all as a seperate issue; gays are humans, simply, and it ought to be a non-issue.
Do you have a different understanding of the few hadith to which I refer?
Of course not. But that is not what I criticise - it is the disingenious way you choose to over-interpret or misinterpret, knowing full well that this is what you do. I for one want to have peace in the world, which is why I am strongly opposed to those who, like you, do anything they can to create trouble. How can you expect to bridge the gap that divides them from us, when you are so eager to provoke?
By the way, what do you mean "from the safety of my desktop"? Would you prefer we were debating these issues in some kind of face-to-face venue that would give you physical access to me? Might this be desirable for you because, were we to disagree, you could engage a form of "mediation" that involves goin' all roving death squad on me?
Yes, yes, how very intelligent. Can I assume that this is the kind of level you function on? I go into the bar, call you a "yellow-bellied son of a whatnot" and the we draw our guns? Most mature people are able to discuss, even heatedly, without resorting to violence; and most people are open to finding a solution that doesn't involve a re-enactment of the Final Solution. Are you?
Or, in other words, radical Muslims are fearful that a large faction of the faithful will splinter off and form a new denomination based on the worship of an episode of South Park.
Don't be an idiot. You know perfectly well that you are just trying to be provocative - in effect choosing to push away any possible mediation in the very real conflict behind it all. This suggests that you are not going to be a productive participant in the discussion; you just want to spread shit and stir trouble from the safety of your desktop.
Of course we shouldn't let a small minority of extremists tell the majority what to do or how to do it; but then, why do you allow mindless tossers like Rush Limbaugh or Pat Robertson airtime, where they can twist the minds of people, largely unchallenged? But the way to a peaceful world goes through the lands of compromise, respect and mutual understanding; people - on both sides - who are unwilling to go that way, won't reach that goal.
The public pays for gathering the data, the public should have access to that data. Kinda hard to find fault with that.
It isn't quite as clearcut as that. First off, the research that goes on at universities is often paid for in part by businesses, and their condition for contributing is of course that they have first access to the results. Secondly, even it some research is paid fully by the public, that is not the only investment - the efforts of the researchers involved represent a significant investment, and it is right that the reasearchers should therefore have a significant say in when and how the data are released.
Of course, the end goal and the normal working practice of scientists is to publish data and results, but if we want to have scientific research at all, then we have to respect the rights of those who invest their effort, talent and interest in it.
Marriage is a convenient legal framework for two people who have chosen to live their lives together. I am not ignoring the significant, emotional investment people make when they marry, but from society's point of view, that is all it is and all it should be. It is a contract that makes it easier to sort out things like inheritance, custody and a number of other matters. Divorce is the legal termination of this contract, simply.
I can't in all of this, see any reason to involve God or gods, or require that it is only valid between opposite genders; or for that matter, why it should be limited to 1 to 1 relations (it would be quite interesting to try to construct the legal framework necessary to accomodate marriages between x women and y men, actually). Again, I am fully aware that couples may wish to ask their gods to bless their relation, and that the customs of society may be against certain relationships, but there is no objective reason to be against it. If we were openminded, we wouldn't.
All of China is the same, all products from there are made in some sort of sweatshop, or semi slavery condition
You obviously haven't been to China or even studied the available facts, otherwise you wouldn't spew such nonsense. Why do you think most Chinese students return to China after finishing their degree at university in the US? Just so they can have a go at sitting in a sweatshop 15 hours a day? The sad truth is that China puts us all to shame in the West, with their work discipline.
England did the same at one time
As did the US, amongs others, and for a very long time: remember slavery.
... a society where everything is measured in money terms...
Funny, that has always been what people have been saying about the US; "Americans know the price of everything and the value of nothing". Unfair perhaps, but such is life.
Slaves are the ultimate efficient factory "technology"- intelligent human labor, no cost.
Feeding a slave actually costs money, and they don't keep working 24/7 - they didn't even in the US before the Civil War. Machines are far more productive and effective, simply. Apart from that, slaves may be intelligent, but but forced labourers don't do their best, for obvious reasons: it is simply not worth it.
We need to get past the capitalism-or-socialism two sides of the same coin, and look to other alternatives
I agree - but that isn't the end of it. We need to get past the lies that we are told by biased media propagandists too. China is not perfect, but it far from as bad as you seem to think. If you want to start a revolution, start in your own heart; and you could do worse than beginning to read your news from a wider spread of sources. And put that American attack-dog attitude behind you; changing things implies persuading people to agree with your view, and you can't persuade anyone if you appear uninformed and aggressive.
I don't think it is Linux as such - it is just that programming no longer new and exciting. When I was young, computers were "electronic brains" far beyond the reach of common people; making electronics was exciting back then. I learned programming in high school - and it was incredibly exciting to sit up a whole night transferring a BASIC program to cards with a pencil. Programming Windows 1.x and 2.x was exciting because it was, again, something new and inspiring. Then finally Linux introduced a lot of what computing was all about - preemptive multitasking, full access to all aspects of the system etc etc, which you've never had in Windows.
But now, I think we have come to the end of the new and exciting things, at least in programming. It is a bit sad, but it had to come to an end, eventually. I've enjoyed it, but it is no longer the hottest of the hot.
The ALA must know that numerous studies show that, absent the tobacco smoke, nicotine is relatively harmless and comparable to caffeine.
A couple of quotes from Wikipedia:
"The pharmacological and behavioral characteristics that determine tobacco addiction are similar to those that determine addiction to drugs such as heroin and cocaine"
"40-60 mg (0.5-1.0 mg/kg) can be a lethal dosage for adult humans"
"Nicotine has very powerful effects on arteries throughout the body. Nicotine is a stimulant, it raises blood pressure, and is a vasoconstrictor, making it harder for the heart to pump through the constricted arteries. It causes the body to release its stores of fat and cholesterol into the blood"
I couldn't find anything about the toxicity of caffeine, but it is definitely not as dangerous as nicotine by many miles. It is more realistically compared to heroin; in fact, there seems to far fewer health effects from long-term use of heroin as such - the detrimental effects come from dirty needles and impure heroin, and when heroin was first marketed in the 19th century, it was hailed as a safe alternative to morphine and opium for that very reason.
Well, there is an option available - I don't know what they are called, but it is basically a pre-paid (and anonymous, AFAIK) debit-card. You charge it with the amount you want to use, and that is then all you risk losing. Visa probably offers them as well - I have seen them targeted at those who for some reason can't get a bank account.
But you are right; the banks are ripping us all off and they are allowed to get away with it too. Example:
In UK they routinely charge a punitive fee for unauthorise overdrafts; but they have made the debit card system so that it is very difficult to avoid. It doesn't take a lot of cynicism to imagine that they are fully aware that this setup is likely to make them a lot of money. Before I changed from Barclay's Bank, I got hit in a particularly vicious way: I accidentally made a minor overdraft, this was punished with a 30GBP fine. Since there was not enough money available to pay the fee, surprise, suprise, this generated another fee, and so on. There was a limit of three fees - even they could see that there had to be some sort of limit - but it meant that even a small transgression was guaranteed to cost 90GBP.
I could go on, but it is too depressing.
What I don't understand is that there are people who still talk with a straight face about "the freedom of the market", and that we have to deregulate. This kind of thing is the direct result of following that ideology; we all know what it is that flows to the top of a stale pond, and what it does to everything living there - it pollutes the water, chokes the fish and blocks out the light. And the rots and starts to stink - it seems an eerily appropriate description of the current Western society.
Slashdot Mirror
I see a revolution or civil war happening long before a political solution would ever arise.
Perhaps - the problem, though, is that revolutioneries never can agree. For each Bolshevik, there will be a Trotskyist, Maoist and whatever they call themselves these days, and that is only on the left; there will be an equal number of Christian radicals, Fascists, Neo-Nazis, White-Supremacists, etc etc. The amazing thing is, they will all claim to be fighting for "The Freedom of The People" - for given values of "Freedom" and "People", of course.
The way I see it - never, bloody mind these ID schemes. You may be uncomfortable knowing that you don't have full and exclusive control over the information you regard as your own, but that is a simple fact of life, and the only thing one can do about it is to learn to live with it.
There are far more important problems to address; not least of which is the problem with what Capitalism or Consumerism has been allowed to turn into. I don't believe what people really want is some sort of "Total Freedom" - they just want to be allowed to live their lives without unreasonable restrictions like the ever more idiotic attempts at keeping people from copying digital media, or drug laws that are founded in fearful views from a previous century rather than scientific knowledge.
There is no real, perfect freedom - it is like art: in the 60es and 70es there was a trend towards completely free art, which turned out to be things like paint being splashed idly on canvases and so on; now, perhaps it has been realised that before you can truly express yourself with freedom, you need to learn a lot of technique and disciplin, which you can then transcend. I think this teaches us a valid lesson about society too: that you can't have true freedom, unless you have good discipline (ie "Laws"); it is simply a matter of finding the right balance - what we vaguely call "fairness".
However, the main driver for the change in this policy seems to be the 800-million-pound cost.
That, and the fact that it doesn't really add anything that they don't have already somewhere else, so what's the point?
I would say that anything is better, at least in terms of expressiveness; even JCL has richer syntax.
I can understand why you like DOS, in a way - back in the day, I used to know the BIOS and the DOS interrupts by heart. Still, now I use ksh - I wouldn't be surprised if you can get that (or bash, which is a tolerable alternative) for DOS. There is a lot more to learn, but then, of course, it lets you do much more too.
Oh, and upgrade from DOS - Linux is what DOS aspired to, originally, as evidenced by the old XENIX system.
Hmmm.. "Public Enema Number One". I like that.
just because something happened in the past doesn't mean that it will happen again. let's take a hard look at the facts and the numbers, and not be frightened by prophecy. statistics tell the story that you want to tell.
You are right, of course. So, why don't you jump out of tall building? Just because things have fallen downwards in the past doesn't mean that you can't stay up if you try.
By this logic Qbert was the filthiest game ever made.
Not at all, young human; games like Rogue and Angband consist almost entirely of characters like @, #, *, ...; thus they are made entirely of filth.
First they treat him like shit, then they dig him out of the ground and force their belated praise on his remains in order to look good. Maybe I am just being petty, but I can't help feeling that this sort of propaganda stunt is tasteless to say the least.
Like, if I for years beat up my wife, then suddenly one day felt I'd better show some remorse and be a 'good husband'. The word 'shameless' springs to mind.
Bakkster just did above.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1659634&cid=32292314
So what you are saying is that because certain legal cases support this principle, that makes it the law? I can't claim to have studied American law in any detail, but have always assumed that the separation of power was fundamental to any modern, democratic society. If what you are implying is correct, then that is not true for the US - since in that case judges also become legislators.
In my own coutry, the role of a judge is to interpret existing law, taking into account precedent, and to rule accordingly; the purpose, of course, being that a judge shouldn't be allowed to make it up as he goes along. A very valid point, in my view.
Does a person lose their right to anonymous speech merely because someone SUSPECTS that they might someone else?
I wasn't aware that any person had the right to anonymous speech. This is from Wikipedia:
Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak without censorship and/or limitation. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on "hate speech".
Can you show me anywhere in relevant legislation where it says that a person has the right to be anonymous? Freedom of expression is a legal guarantee that you can't be prosecuted under criminal law for expression you views - but you still need to have the courage to express your views in the open, as opposed to behind people's back.
You may be thinking of "whistleblowing" - but there is no universal, legal protection for whisteblowers. Perhaps there ought to be, but that is beside the point - the fact remains that there isn't.
China is not trying to 'kill' America. They are simply trying to steal from it. And that potentially amounts to a slow and painful 'death'.
One of the things I object to is this use of black-and-white, categorical language: "China steals from America" - this is something that alludes to a them-and-us mindset, which is simply wrong. Take another example - recently, when Mossad agents made false, British passports and used them in connection with an assasination, was that an example of "the nation of Israel stealing from Great Britain"? Or was it a case of "agents in the Israel Secret Service going over the line"? Since UK regards Israel as a friendly nation, their criticism was that Israel didn't keep their minions under control. Ans since we have good reasons to regard China as a friendly nation (as you say, they are not out to kill us), the assumption here should be that industrial espionage is not the hostile acts of China against America, but acts carried out by individuals not being kept on a sufficiently tight leash.
China is still a developing nation - the incredible, financial growth rate is a symptom of this, and it is also one of the reasons why things are not nearly as much under the control of the law as we are used to in the West. The idea that China is a closely supervised society where you can't fart without at least ten government departments recording it is nothing more than nonsense.
So is industrial espionage by individuals in China a big problem? Possibly - I wouldn't know. I don't think that is our real problem; the financial crisis shows that our biggest problem is the lack of decency and ethical standards that seems ingrained in American-style capitalism, combined with the lassez-faire ideology that has led to lack of regulations. The oil-leak in the Gulf is another good example. This kind of shit has to stop, otherwise we will end up as the run-down neighborhood of the world.
The author didn't state it elegantly, but he still made the point -- Chinese industrial espionage is very real, is here now, and it is state-sponsored.
I don't think he - or you - has any point besides the obvious. Do you really imagine that guys like you are the only ones that know about these things? Or that China is the only country that does it?
There is no need to go looking for enemies in China or Russia - they are big nations, and they have a clear and obvious interest in not upsetting the balance in the world too much; if one of the big nations were to fail, it would hurt every nation in the world, so America, Russia, China etc are going to protect each others' interests and stability, at least against major upsets. Would China benefit from America suddenly being relegated to the bottom? Of course not - what would happen to their exports and the stability of their currency? No, China is America's friend, at least in the same sense that your business partners are your friends.
The real enemies of America (and China, Russia, ...) are the crackpots who are willing to throw away their own life to hurt you, followed closely by conspiracy theorists, that keep dreaming up sensational "threats", but somehow miss the real ones.
So, how do you know that you are not a conspiracy theorist? Simple: if you are willing to change your opinion in the light of evidence, then you are not one.
- but what would be more useful in practical terms would be a car where the wheels could be turned so you could drive sideways.
... require a 1-to-1 ratio for women's and men's restrooms ...
It seems like a very small problem to try to fix by law; which is not to say that it may not be important. Still, I read an article once, in a mathematical journal, no less, that worked on this problem of why there always is a long queue outside the ladies' when there is hardly any by the gets'. It turns out that what makes the whole difference is that men stand and women sit, if you know what I mean. It takes a little bit longer for a woman, and that is enough to make that difference; so to solve the problem, there needs to more loos for women than men - I don't remember the ratio, but it is probably the Golden one, all things considered.
This is of course an example from queue theory and chaos; another one is the situation where the traffic grinds to a halt on the motorway for no obvious reason. It turns out that it has a lot to do with lorries overtaking, which forces smaller cars to brake, which causes people further back to brake harder, etc etc all the way down a standstill.
And remember: Don't smoke!
Kagan argued in the government's brief that speech was entitled to no First Amendment protection if its harms outweigh its benefits: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs." Kagan did not argue the case before the Court.
I feel that the term "Freedom of Speech" gets overused, misused and abused just about all the time, nowadays. The danger of this is that it loses its real, and very important meaning and becomes something like a buzzword used by the chronic whiners as an excuse for everything.
To me, at least, Freedom of Speech means simply a guarantee that you will not face criminal charges only for expressing your political or religious views, full stop. This is obviously of fundamental importance in any society, not least in a democratic one. As far as I can see, what this lady says is, that we have to take the consequences of what people say into consideration, which is not so far from what appears to be the mainstream view - I mean, what if somebody feels very strongly that he should be the emperor of America and that he is right to incite violent uprisings and random destruction? It is certainly a political view, and as the examples of Hitler and Mussolini show, they may even be rather successful.
She also argued that prosecutors who deliberately manufacture evidence to convict (by definition) innocent people should not be civilly liable for their actions. I don't have great hopes that she'd side with individuals when it most matters.
I tend to agree - this kind of malpractise should be settled in the criminal court, not in a civil one.
Well, I suppose we should do like in Australia, where they tend to have a well-hung parlament, or so I am given to understand.
Think of it this way, if the government had no concern for marriage and only "cared" about civil unions, what issue would it be what the sexes of the two parties are?
You want to "marry" a man or woman or child or goat or rock (or a mix), that's between you and the church.
Everything else is a contract, let the lawyers fight over it.
What a curious distinction - surely all a marriage is, is a contract, a civil union, if you like? Whether people choose to ask their god(s) for blessing of the union is an individual choice; but the main point of marriage is that it is a recognized, legal form with tangible consequences, as it clarifies things like custodial rights, inheritance issues, legal procedures in case of divorce etc etc.
It is tragic that it is necessary to talk about gay rights at all as a seperate issue; gays are humans, simply, and it ought to be a non-issue.
Do you have a different understanding of the few hadith to which I refer?
Of course not. But that is not what I criticise - it is the disingenious way you choose to over-interpret or misinterpret, knowing full well that this is what you do. I for one want to have peace in the world, which is why I am strongly opposed to those who, like you, do anything they can to create trouble. How can you expect to bridge the gap that divides them from us, when you are so eager to provoke?
By the way, what do you mean "from the safety of my desktop"? Would you prefer we were debating these issues in some kind of face-to-face venue that would give you physical access to me? Might this be desirable for you because, were we to disagree, you could engage a form of "mediation" that involves goin' all roving death squad on me?
Yes, yes, how very intelligent. Can I assume that this is the kind of level you function on? I go into the bar, call you a "yellow-bellied son of a whatnot" and the we draw our guns? Most mature people are able to discuss, even heatedly, without resorting to violence; and most people are open to finding a solution that doesn't involve a re-enactment of the Final Solution. Are you?
Or, in other words, radical Muslims are fearful that a large faction of the faithful will splinter off and form a new denomination based on the worship of an episode of South Park.
Don't be an idiot. You know perfectly well that you are just trying to be provocative - in effect choosing to push away any possible mediation in the very real conflict behind it all. This suggests that you are not going to be a productive participant in the discussion; you just want to spread shit and stir trouble from the safety of your desktop.
Of course we shouldn't let a small minority of extremists tell the majority what to do or how to do it; but then, why do you allow mindless tossers like Rush Limbaugh or Pat Robertson airtime, where they can twist the minds of people, largely unchallenged? But the way to a peaceful world goes through the lands of compromise, respect and mutual understanding; people - on both sides - who are unwilling to go that way, won't reach that goal.
The public pays for gathering the data, the public should have access to that data. Kinda hard to find fault with that.
It isn't quite as clearcut as that. First off, the research that goes on at universities is often paid for in part by businesses, and their condition for contributing is of course that they have first access to the results. Secondly, even it some research is paid fully by the public, that is not the only investment - the efforts of the researchers involved represent a significant investment, and it is right that the reasearchers should therefore have a significant say in when and how the data are released.
Of course, the end goal and the normal working practice of scientists is to publish data and results, but if we want to have scientific research at all, then we have to respect the rights of those who invest their effort, talent and interest in it.
Marriage is a convenient legal framework for two people who have chosen to live their lives together. I am not ignoring the significant, emotional investment people make when they marry, but from society's point of view, that is all it is and all it should be. It is a contract that makes it easier to sort out things like inheritance, custody and a number of other matters. Divorce is the legal termination of this contract, simply.
I can't in all of this, see any reason to involve God or gods, or require that it is only valid between opposite genders; or for that matter, why it should be limited to 1 to 1 relations (it would be quite interesting to try to construct the legal framework necessary to accomodate marriages between x women and y men, actually). Again, I am fully aware that couples may wish to ask their gods to bless their relation, and that the customs of society may be against certain relationships, but there is no objective reason to be against it. If we were openminded, we wouldn't.
All of China is the same, all products from there are made in some sort of sweatshop, or semi slavery condition
You obviously haven't been to China or even studied the available facts, otherwise you wouldn't spew such nonsense. Why do you think most Chinese students return to China after finishing their degree at university in the US? Just so they can have a go at sitting in a sweatshop 15 hours a day? The sad truth is that China puts us all to shame in the West, with their work discipline.
England did the same at one time
As did the US, amongs others, and for a very long time: remember slavery.
... a society where everything is measured in money terms...
Funny, that has always been what people have been saying about the US; "Americans know the price of everything and the value of nothing". Unfair perhaps, but such is life.
Slaves are the ultimate efficient factory "technology"- intelligent human labor, no cost.
Feeding a slave actually costs money, and they don't keep working 24/7 - they didn't even in the US before the Civil War. Machines are far more productive and effective, simply. Apart from that, slaves may be intelligent, but but forced labourers don't do their best, for obvious reasons: it is simply not worth it.
We need to get past the capitalism-or-socialism two sides of the same coin, and look to other alternatives
I agree - but that isn't the end of it. We need to get past the lies that we are told by biased media propagandists too. China is not perfect, but it far from as bad as you seem to think. If you want to start a revolution, start in your own heart; and you could do worse than beginning to read your news from a wider spread of sources. And put that American attack-dog attitude behind you; changing things implies persuading people to agree with your view, and you can't persuade anyone if you appear uninformed and aggressive.
I don't think it is Linux as such - it is just that programming no longer new and exciting. When I was young, computers were "electronic brains" far beyond the reach of common people; making electronics was exciting back then. I learned programming in high school - and it was incredibly exciting to sit up a whole night transferring a BASIC program to cards with a pencil. Programming Windows 1.x and 2.x was exciting because it was, again, something new and inspiring. Then finally Linux introduced a lot of what computing was all about - preemptive multitasking, full access to all aspects of the system etc etc, which you've never had in Windows.
But now, I think we have come to the end of the new and exciting things, at least in programming. It is a bit sad, but it had to come to an end, eventually. I've enjoyed it, but it is no longer the hottest of the hot.
The ALA must know that numerous studies show that, absent the tobacco smoke, nicotine is relatively harmless and comparable to caffeine.
A couple of quotes from Wikipedia:
"The pharmacological and behavioral characteristics that determine tobacco addiction are similar to those that determine addiction to drugs such as heroin and cocaine"
"40-60 mg (0.5-1.0 mg/kg) can be a lethal dosage for adult humans"
"Nicotine has very powerful effects on arteries throughout the body. Nicotine is a stimulant, it raises blood pressure, and is a vasoconstrictor, making it harder for the heart to pump through the constricted arteries. It causes the body to release its stores of fat and cholesterol into the blood"
I couldn't find anything about the toxicity of caffeine, but it is definitely not as dangerous as nicotine by many miles. It is more realistically compared to heroin; in fact, there seems to far fewer health effects from long-term use of heroin as such - the detrimental effects come from dirty needles and impure heroin, and when heroin was first marketed in the 19th century, it was hailed as a safe alternative to morphine and opium for that very reason.
Well, there is an option available - I don't know what they are called, but it is basically a pre-paid (and anonymous, AFAIK) debit-card. You charge it with the amount you want to use, and that is then all you risk losing. Visa probably offers them as well - I have seen them targeted at those who for some reason can't get a bank account.
But you are right; the banks are ripping us all off and they are allowed to get away with it too. Example:
In UK they routinely charge a punitive fee for unauthorise overdrafts; but they have made the debit card system so that it is very difficult to avoid. It doesn't take a lot of cynicism to imagine that they are fully aware that this setup is likely to make them a lot of money. Before I changed from Barclay's Bank, I got hit in a particularly vicious way: I accidentally made a minor overdraft, this was punished with a 30GBP fine. Since there was not enough money available to pay the fee, surprise, suprise, this generated another fee, and so on. There was a limit of three fees - even they could see that there had to be some sort of limit - but it meant that even a small transgression was guaranteed to cost 90GBP.
I could go on, but it is too depressing.
What I don't understand is that there are people who still talk with a straight face about "the freedom of the market", and that we have to deregulate. This kind of thing is the direct result of following that ideology; we all know what it is that flows to the top of a stale pond, and what it does to everything living there - it pollutes the water, chokes the fish and blocks out the light. And the rots and starts to stink - it seems an eerily appropriate description of the current Western society.