Don't mess with your neighbors wife or cattle.. there's 7 more but basically.. Dont fuck with other people
while your simple rules are nice, if your cops aren't Godlike in their interpretation/enforcement of the law (infallible, unquestionably decent and just) you're going to need some more nuanced rules to guide and limit them. Not to mention the clever crooks who will immediately push your rules to the bounds.
I think you missed the point of my response. You're arguing with a straw man on the issue of irresponsible drivers or police handling this so-called hazard.
My argument is merely that even though a person can be perceived as dangerous when thrown from a vehicle, hundreds of examples are readily available of other comparably dangerous items that are not required to be strapped down, and so your argument is largely irrelevant to the grandparent's point about supporting laws, as it seems clear that the reason the law exists is not to protect from projectile humans.
p.s. I cannot back up with any statistics my statement that auto companies are the cause of these laws. It does not seem like a farfetched conclusion given the monetary interest of insurance companies and the legal requirement for auto insurance, but that is my own concoction. I was just following your lead on the lack of evidence thing though.
That's ridiculous, even if it is technically correct. I've yet to be pulled over for failing to strap in my groceries or my bowling ball when I travel, nor do I have to buckle myself in if I'm on a motorcycle. It is a self-serving law supported by auto-insurers at the expense of your freedom.
I did not know much about LOGCAP before you mentioned it, so thank you for giving me something to reasearch. However, I read the first three articles I could find on LOGCAP and none of them mentioned the competitive bidding process, nor anything comptetive or monetarily responsible that I could see. I would love some links to the competitive nature of the sytem.
HaliburtonWatch was on the top 3 links regarding LOGCAP and provides a none-to-flattering view of this program. Of particular interest is they
assert
a 9 million dollar study was given to a subsidy of haliburton (KBR) to determine whether or not private companies should be involved in these logistics and that, not suprisingly, the classified study found that the goverment SHOULD subsidize it. After getting the contract in 1992 Cheney became the CEO in 1995. After allegations of fraudulent billing practices in 1997 ( not a Texas megaconglomorate overcharging!) KBR/Haliburton lost the contract to Dynacorp. However, dynacorp was fired when Cheney took office again in 2001, and Haliburton resumed the contract, like clockwork.
Regardless of which puppet party is in control, the issue to me is the conflict of interest, and the repeated violations of trust by halliburton, outlined in detail at halliburtonwatch.org are indicative of the brother-in-lawing that is goin on here.
I don't mean to summarily dismiss your arguments or analogies, I really like this type of discourse, but I really do see very little in common between a for-profit private company getting a no bid contract while the (former?) CEO is vice president, and a public entity like the police being called when someone is breaking into a house.
well, 2 > 1 as you have said yourself, and being as there is a glaring conflict of interest in choosing a, perhaps they should have chosen b, or made it an open contract. This is assuming, of course, that 1 enormous contract was the best way to go about the rebuilding process, and perhaps it was. As a state employee I am forbidden from doing many things that are seemingly benign due to a potential conflict of interest (accepting meals from contractors is considered such.) How does this compare?
The police are in almost no ways comparable to Haliburton, nor was the situation close to someone breaking into a house, so that analogy plain sucks.
Haliburton. I will never forget the no bid contract for the rebuilding of iraq given to the vice president's company. That is blood money in my mind, and damn him for pork-barreling it. I will not forgive him for that. The usa-patriot act. I could keep going. Do I really need to go into detail for all of the reasons this man will go down in history as the opposite of what you described?
if new york has any system close to the one here in texas, moderate personal use of a telephone is expressedly allowed. Conversely, there is a zero tolerance policy for personal use on the internet. Does this not seem counterintuitive to you? In my opinion, the intent of the telephone policy voices that the government understands the needs of its employees to communicate with the outside world while at work, and makes reasonable allowances for that. The zero tolerance policy is not only stupid (as are many state policies, ever seen the cones behind state vehicles?) but it is incredibly unfair to fire someone over such a minimal offense.
My boss has told me that he thinks it is an outdated policy, and would not be a nazi about it (contrary to what our new employee training speakers blathered on about.)
I'm not certain how important his overall appearance was to him, but I remember in the biography I read that he did shave, always. Without shaving cream. Once, someone gave him some, and he used it up but never got another bottle. A minimalist to a fault.
"If you're buying a Picasso," he continued, "you can't just buy the upper right-hand corner."
Uou don't see the top right hand corner by itself either when Picasso it is displayed, yet we hear only portions of an album on the radio all the time. And shame on him for comparing Ne Yo or anything he sells to Picasso.
Why everyone is attacking my wording and ignoring my point?
All this talk of altruism, the vast, VAST majority of people in the military are there for the financial benefits, and likely you wouldn't have joined were it not for the paycheck as well.
Regardless, this is all far from my point. Each soldier, as a human being is morally responsible for the things that he/she does, and the fact that you are getting paid by someone for it does not alleviate responsiblity.
Many of our soldiers are simply carrying out their jobs and doing what they are trained to do. It's a job.
That is ridiculous logic...they have a net benefit from what they do, so they aren't responsible for their actions, it is the fault of the tantalizing reward, or rewarder. What the hell ever. Don't further the vogue love fest for our mercenaries with your ill-conceived rationalizations. The fact that they are getting paid by someone hardly makes it ethical.
What I have always thought was interesting was that they ate from the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. So, if before this they had no knowlege of good and evil, how did they know what they were doing was wrong? How could they be held accountable for that if they didn't even know what evil was?
I agree that he is being racist, but an individual has a right to hold an opinion about a person or group of people and act upon that opinion to a degree, we do it all the time. For a goverment to do something like that is not a good comparison.
However, both the racist and you make a giant leap to assume that these people are chinese in the first place. Many people cannot speak the language well, and it might very well be someone posing as a Chinese player, for whatever reason. I hardly think "Chinese == poor command of English", one might just as easily say that "lack of money == poor command of English", and choose not to group with them for that reason. Would you have the same level moral indignation if guy/girl were being snobby instead of racist?
The Chinese people aren't idiots, they know their government censors information, and they would know why Google had suddenly been blocked by the firewall
If the chinese KNOW that their goverment censors information, then it will be easier to tell what their goverment DOESN'T want them to know by having google there. "Oh, that is blocked I see, why would they not want me to see information about THAT?"
I wish it were that easy for me to find out what my goverment doesn't want me to know.
How you can say something like this and get modded insightful is beyond me. There is no correlatation between your two statements, one is a goverment enforced racism, the other is a single person's decision to not group with people based on the quality of their speech.
Unless you are merely using his text out of context to make an argument with someone that might hold that opinion, YOU'RE the one with the lack of understanding, specifically how to argue. Look up straw man argument, logical fallacy, slippery slope.
you typecast me as homophobic when I list multiple other ways marriage could be cheapened: ie: multiple partners, single marriage, ect.
Regardless, there are 1400 some odd legal benefits to being married, many that would not benefit one person, but more than a couple that do and many that would affect multiple partners (insurance and healthcare coverage for sure) so your simple math isn't simple at all.
You brought up a point I wasn't sure you would concede, the state valuing marriage for the sake of the children. Obviously the ability to have children isn't limited to marriage, so I don't know why you brought that up. However, the environment is the key. Is there any conclusive evidence that children raised in a homosexual environment are as good (grades, social skills, ect) as children raised in a straight environment? I am very curious as the statistics would affect my views greatly, and what I am fishing for in this very off topic discussion.
I've no problem with same sex couples, but when it comes to free benefits I want justification, otherwise I think that I should be free to get them as well.
they should have the same civil rights to marry as us
They do have the same rights to marry as us, a gay woman could marry a gay man at any time. And who is to say they can't set up a covenant between themselves and wear the rings and all. Oh wait, they want the marriage benefits? Hell, so do I, but I don't expect to be allowed to marry my roommate, though he's a swell chap.
I think the notion of rights is a little out of context here. Why shouldn't I have the right to marry multiple women concurrently. Why shouldn't I be able to marry myself and get those marriage benefits?
The institute of marriage has, in my mind, has proven itself as a beneficial structure to society, and perhaps deserves those benefits. To cheapen marriage in the name of "equality" is to jeopardize the entire structure.
You might notice the most recent patch that came out. Characters can now obtain particular skills and items simply from playing the game pvp. you can obtain "faction" from random team battles, team battles, hall of heroes and guil battles.
I takes somethink like 2000 faction to get a superior rune, and you get something like 12 faction for a single win in a random battle. Guild and HOH are much higher in payout as well, I think guild battles are in the realm of 300-500 faction. You might look back into it.
So what's the big deal. We'll tell everyone about our purchasing habits for £10 per year, but complain because we have to coff up for a state system? No wonder politicians think we have the appetite for ID cards.
I'm not sure if you are stating your's or your govermment's position with that statement, but my response to that point of view is this:
Individuals are allowed to trade their freedom for whatever price they deem worthy, and that is their perogative. However, when the loss of freedom is compulsory it is an altogether different matter. The citizens being required to pay for the real ID is just added insult to injury.
Here is the thing. Even though this expansion of powers is in the preliminary state, it shows the direction the government is taking.
Most of us were hoping that the goverment would see the patriot act as a temporary solution at best. Some of the provisions of the act are set to expire near the end of this year, and this was some solace to the infringment on our liberties.
We are a bit outraged that the goverment not only wants to retain these powers, but further them! This is why I am so irate at the mere suggestion of the expansion of powers to the patriot act.
I agree with your friend's actions, even if they weren't motivated by a desire to protect his privacy. We should not submit to being treated like criminals, even if it makes us look more suspicious.
In this case it caused him to be treated more like a crook, but if everyone does the there will be no way to keep up with the volume. This is why it is important for everyone who cares about their privacy to stand up for it.
Most of us don't have anything to hide, we just don't want people prying unneccesarily.
Not to be pedantic, but I actually make the amount of money you are talking about, and you are forgetting a number of things...of that $2640(which assumes he'll get to work > 40 hours a week) take 28% off the top just for taxes (you're at 1900 now)...then add in health insurance, car insurance, gasoline, phone bills (communication is a bit of a neccesity), food, electric, rent, and the minumum payment on the college loans (which is calculating interest at 3.2% (of $30,000 that is $960)
It is staggering how quickly the money evaporates, and this is on a good month where no intangibles occur
something like $500/month might be more feasible...but we then are looking at 5 years of regimented living with no major purchases/catastrophies.
Just a little perspective, it isn't such an easy to do.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you missed the point of my response. You're arguing with a straw man on the issue of irresponsible drivers or police handling this so-called hazard.
My argument is merely that even though a person can be perceived as dangerous when thrown from a vehicle, hundreds of examples are readily available of other comparably dangerous items that are not required to be strapped down, and so your argument is largely irrelevant to the grandparent's point about supporting laws, as it seems clear that the reason the law exists is not to protect from projectile humans.
p.s. I cannot back up with any statistics my statement that auto companies are the cause of these laws. It does not seem like a farfetched conclusion given the monetary interest of insurance companies and the legal requirement for auto insurance, but that is my own concoction. I was just following your lead on the lack of evidence thing though.
That's ridiculous, even if it is technically correct. I've yet to be pulled over for failing to strap in my groceries or my bowling ball when I travel, nor do I have to buckle myself in if I'm on a motorcycle. It is a self-serving law supported by auto-insurers at the expense of your freedom.
I did not know much about LOGCAP before you mentioned it, so thank you for giving me something to reasearch. However, I read the first three articles I could find on LOGCAP and none of them mentioned the competitive bidding process, nor anything comptetive or monetarily responsible that I could see. I would love some links to the competitive nature of the sytem.
HaliburtonWatch was on the top 3 links regarding LOGCAP and provides a none-to-flattering view of this program. Of particular interest is they assert a 9 million dollar study was given to a subsidy of haliburton (KBR) to determine whether or not private companies should be involved in these logistics and that, not suprisingly, the classified study found that the goverment SHOULD subsidize it. After getting the contract in 1992 Cheney became the CEO in 1995. After allegations of fraudulent billing practices in 1997 ( not a Texas megaconglomorate overcharging!) KBR/Haliburton lost the contract to Dynacorp. However, dynacorp was fired when Cheney took office again in 2001, and Haliburton resumed the contract, like clockwork.
Regardless of which puppet party is in control, the issue to me is the conflict of interest, and the repeated violations of trust by halliburton, outlined in detail at halliburtonwatch.org are indicative of the brother-in-lawing that is goin on here.
I don't mean to summarily dismiss your arguments or analogies, I really like this type of discourse, but I really do see very little in common between a for-profit private company getting a no bid contract while the (former?) CEO is vice president, and a public entity like the police being called when someone is breaking into a house.
well, 2 > 1 as you have said yourself, and being as there is a glaring conflict of interest in choosing a, perhaps they should have chosen b, or made it an open contract. This is assuming, of course, that 1 enormous contract was the best way to go about the rebuilding process, and perhaps it was. As a state employee I am forbidden from doing many things that are seemingly benign due to a potential conflict of interest (accepting meals from contractors is considered such.) How does this compare? The police are in almost no ways comparable to Haliburton, nor was the situation close to someone breaking into a house, so that analogy plain sucks.
interesting you noted that, as it coincides with the immigration policy (yes, stereotyping, but that doesn't mean its not true)
Haliburton. I will never forget the no bid contract for the rebuilding of iraq given to the vice president's company. That is blood money in my mind, and damn him for pork-barreling it. I will not forgive him for that. The usa-patriot act. I could keep going. Do I really need to go into detail for all of the reasons this man will go down in history as the opposite of what you described?
if new york has any system close to the one here in texas, moderate personal use of a telephone is expressedly allowed. Conversely, there is a zero tolerance policy for personal use on the internet. Does this not seem counterintuitive to you? In my opinion, the intent of the telephone policy voices that the government understands the needs of its employees to communicate with the outside world while at work, and makes reasonable allowances for that. The zero tolerance policy is not only stupid (as are many state policies, ever seen the cones behind state vehicles?) but it is incredibly unfair to fire someone over such a minimal offense.
My boss has told me that he thinks it is an outdated policy, and would not be a nazi about it (contrary to what our new employee training speakers blathered on about.)I'm not certain how important his overall appearance was to him, but I remember in the biography I read that he did shave, always. Without shaving cream. Once, someone gave him some, and he used it up but never got another bottle. A minimalist to a fault.
Why everyone is attacking my wording and ignoring my point?
All this talk of altruism, the vast, VAST majority of people in the military are there for the financial benefits, and likely you wouldn't have joined were it not for the paycheck as well.
Regardless, this is all far from my point. Each soldier, as a human being is morally responsible for the things that he/she does, and the fact that you are getting paid by someone for it does not alleviate responsiblity.
Many of our soldiers are simply carrying out their jobs and doing what they are trained to do. It's a job.
That is ridiculous logic...they have a net benefit from what they do, so they aren't responsible for their actions, it is the fault of the tantalizing reward, or rewarder. What the hell ever. Don't further the vogue love fest for our mercenaries with your ill-conceived rationalizations. The fact that they are getting paid by someone hardly makes it ethical.
What I have always thought was interesting was that they ate from the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. So, if before this they had no knowlege of good and evil, how did they know what they were doing was wrong? How could they be held accountable for that if they didn't even know what evil was?
AKA Rick James/Dave Chappell technique.
What did the 5 fingers say to the face?
I agree that he is being racist, but an individual has a right to hold an opinion about a person or group of people and act upon that opinion to a degree, we do it all the time. For a goverment to do something like that is not a good comparison.
However, both the racist and you make a giant leap to assume that these people are chinese in the first place. Many people cannot speak the language well, and it might very well be someone posing as a Chinese player, for whatever reason. I hardly think "Chinese == poor command of English", one might just as easily say that "lack of money == poor command of English", and choose not to group with them for that reason. Would you have the same level moral indignation if guy/girl were being snobby instead of racist?
Just something to consider.The Chinese people aren't idiots, they know their government censors information, and they would know why Google had suddenly been blocked by the firewall
If the chinese KNOW that their goverment censors information, then it will be easier to tell what their goverment DOESN'T want them to know by having google there. "Oh, that is blocked I see, why would they not want me to see information about THAT?"
I wish it were that easy for me to find out what my goverment doesn't want me to know.How you can say something like this and get modded insightful is beyond me. There is no correlatation between your two statements, one is a goverment enforced racism, the other is a single person's decision to not group with people based on the quality of their speech.
Unless you are merely using his text out of context to make an argument with someone that might hold that opinion, YOU'RE the one with the lack of understanding, specifically how to argue. Look up straw man argument, logical fallacy, slippery slope.
you typecast me as homophobic when I list multiple other ways marriage could be cheapened: ie: multiple partners, single marriage, ect. Regardless, there are 1400 some odd legal benefits to being married, many that would not benefit one person, but more than a couple that do and many that would affect multiple partners (insurance and healthcare coverage for sure) so your simple math isn't simple at all. You brought up a point I wasn't sure you would concede, the state valuing marriage for the sake of the children. Obviously the ability to have children isn't limited to marriage, so I don't know why you brought that up. However, the environment is the key. Is there any conclusive evidence that children raised in a homosexual environment are as good (grades, social skills, ect) as children raised in a straight environment? I am very curious as the statistics would affect my views greatly, and what I am fishing for in this very off topic discussion. I've no problem with same sex couples, but when it comes to free benefits I want justification, otherwise I think that I should be free to get them as well.
They do have the same rights to marry as us, a gay woman could marry a gay man at any time. And who is to say they can't set up a covenant between themselves and wear the rings and all. Oh wait, they want the marriage benefits? Hell, so do I, but I don't expect to be allowed to marry my roommate, though he's a swell chap.
I think the notion of rights is a little out of context here. Why shouldn't I have the right to marry multiple women concurrently. Why shouldn't I be able to marry myself and get those marriage benefits?
The institute of marriage has, in my mind, has proven itself as a beneficial structure to society, and perhaps deserves those benefits. To cheapen marriage in the name of "equality" is to jeopardize the entire structure.
You might notice the most recent patch that came out. Characters can now obtain particular skills and items simply from playing the game pvp. you can obtain "faction" from random team battles, team battles, hall of heroes and guil battles.
I takes somethink like 2000 faction to get a superior rune, and you get something like 12 faction for a single win in a random battle. Guild and HOH are much higher in payout as well, I think guild battles are in the realm of 300-500 faction. You might look back into it.
Individuals are allowed to trade their freedom for whatever price they deem worthy, and that is their perogative. However, when the loss of freedom is compulsory it is an altogether different matter. The citizens being required to pay for the real ID is just added insult to injury.
Most of us were hoping that the goverment would see the patriot act as a temporary solution at best. Some of the provisions of the act are set to expire near the end of this year, and this was some solace to the infringment on our liberties.
We are a bit outraged that the goverment not only wants to retain these powers, but further them! This is why I am so irate at the mere suggestion of the expansion of powers to the patriot act.
Could you explain what the other companies you listed have done/are doing so that I can research them as well?
In this case it caused him to be treated more like a crook, but if everyone does the there will be no way to keep up with the volume. This is why it is important for everyone who cares about their privacy to stand up for it.
Most of us don't have anything to hide, we just don't want people prying unneccesarily.
It is staggering how quickly the money evaporates, and this is on a good month where no intangibles occur
something like $500/month might be more feasible...but we then are looking at 5 years of regimented living with no major purchases/catastrophies.Just a little perspective, it isn't such an easy to do.