I can't speak for most states but in Pennsylvania you can refuse to take a test at the check point. At that point the officer has the right to take you into the police station/hospital and have breath, urine or blood tests done. If you refuse those tests it counts as an admission of built to DUI and the penalties are the same as a 2nd offense DUI.
I guess you can call anyplace that enforces laws a Nazi state by your standards.
I just feel pity for you that you're such a loon that you can't see that you're shitting on millions of graves of the innocent by the way you babble on.
Sure, we aren't singling out Jews and Gays, but isn't that in a way EVEN WORSE?
Yeah, all except that whole showering in a mist of Zyclon-B thing, ya know?
And it's not to say I disagree with your general position or that I care that you throw around the term Nazi a bit but let's try to keep some perspective here. Perspective is one of the things that is missing from a lot of posts on Slashdot and it kinda makes people sound like raving retards. Sorry, but that's the way I see it. By making reasonable arguments instead of frothing at the mouth you'll get much more support. And if you really think you need to jump to such hyperbole? Doesn't that make you question your logic in the first place?
you're very wrong here. the impediments to a third party candidate are insurmountable.
This is because third parties are doing it wrong. They're trying to go for the brass ring when they hardly have a viable (ie. visible to the public) contender in the que. Third parties need to focus on state and local elections so that their party's platform gets known and established. This will help them gain momentum. With the funding that most third parties waste on presidential runs they could turn 3 or 4 small elections into victories where the candidates of the majors are soft.
For this reason I will not support a third party with donation but I will support individual candidates of a third party. Any money sent directly to the party will likely be wasted on pie-in-the-sky aspirations while viable candidates for lesser posts languish.
He's getting jail time for unauthorized access, he used software to overcome the security of the router. I would agree with the media that it is close enough to hacking. Now had he stumbled on his neighbors' (open) wifi while trying to connect to his own and gotten busted for child porn I would say the term hacking is a bit much.
His threats against Biden had nothing to do with politics. Had it been McCain in office Palin would have gotten the death threat instead. It seems that he wanted revenge against his neighbors and was sane enough to understand that the local cops were worthless in matters of cyber crime and wanted to insure that semi-competent agents of the law got involved.
First off, transparent != open source. That's a term that is thrown around way too much and because of this it is losing its focus.
I would like to think that if this is part of what the Gates Foundation is doing that it would fall under its transparency.
As for why wait? Everyone has to set a watermark. Perhaps something has happened in his personal situation that is allowing him to be more confident in his contributions. Perhaps he was "sold" on an idea that hadn't been proposed to him before. I think you're looking at the most based concept here and stretching it into things that it may or may not be and deciding from the worst case scenerio what the reality of it is. You don't know these facts any better than anyone else.
Well, seeings as where the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is run transparently, I'd like to think that if they were lying about the 20 million that they claim they gave to CMU last September that someone would call them out on it.
Seriously, I know how much people love to hate MS around here and how popular it is to believe that anyone who is rich who isn't running an open source foundation is nothing but a sack of shit but Gates runs a first rate charitable program. It's open and available for anyone to scrutinize.
Remember these people the next time you swing by WalMart and see someone with a cart full of smokes, junk food, Pixar DVDs and a new BluRay player who is moaning about things getting so bad economically that they're being forced to make the choice between medication and food.
Not to say that this is all of them, not by a long shot, but there are enough "working poor" who are poor because of their spending habbits and not because of their income. People who've gotten roped into 862 channels of garbage on their 52 inch LCD TVs and 5 MPG SUVs who complain about credit card interest rates just make me laugh anymore. The joke would be a lot better if I didn't have to pay for these deadbeats who falter on their debts through hidden charges and fees.
There is no easy answer but the fact that Bill Gates is rich doesn't mean that he's repressing anyone from taking hold of their own lives and bettering themselves.
The problem with small donations is that administrative costs of an organization can often eat up the lion's share of the donations. Having Gates plop down a billion dollars on a charity is a lot more streamlined then 10 million people giving a hundred dollars each. The simpler you keep book keeping the easier it is to uncover waste and fraud as well.
It seems that a lot of his wealth is already flowing and the guy is probably a couple decades from his death and he intends this funding to last 50 years after his death.
And while I agree that what SpaceX is doing is of great importance, I think that Bill's contributions to education is a much more worthy cause to invest in. Let SpaceX make their money, let Bill focus on the human element.
Not that interested about reading the whole bible (or another religious book), but I'm quite sure it does mention something about god creating the earth in 7 days and creating Adam and Eve and all earth life.
I must have missed the part of alien life in religious class in school.
Hmmm.... I don't recall the bible mentioning that God created hammerhead sharks but no religious person I know denies their existence. I guess I missed that too.
I'm quite sure few religious people accept alien life as gods children when they don't accept people without the same beliefs, for reference see Earth (you know all religious wars since the beginning of time).
Really? Do you honestly think most "religious" wars have anything to do with religion? Do you honestly believe that? And do you honestly believe that most people who believe in religion have any real interest in killing people from another religion? As a vast majority of people on the face of this planet are religious, our streets would run with blood on a global scale if this were true.
I don't see much difference between religion/churches and nazis, both have been killing other because they are different.
I see you're not much of a student on history either.
For me it's dirt simple. Either ALL religions are right, there are a god that everyone gets differently, or everyone is wrong. I fail to see how one can be right and all the other wrong.
So, if we find that there are two different theories in science either both of them have to be right or both of them is wrong and (since you want to use such a large brush) if either one of them is wrong that means all science is wrong? Do you really think about these things before you say them?
I don't want to be rude about this but you're just as guilty of making up whatever you think should be right and wrong and condemning others for it as the religious people you proclaim to be against. Give me a single logical reason that all religion must be right or if they're not than all of them are wrong?
And if you then think you are a religious nut, you are free to call me a nerd/geek/science nut or anything you like
I really don't know you and I don't know your background but how are you to determine that you're somehow more logic (science) based in reality than what anyone else is? There's a good chance that I give just as much merit to science as you do but at the same time I don't find a conflict between religion and science. Believe me, I do not come to Slashdot to read about comic books...
For me it hard to take religion seriously because over a thousand of years it has stated so many things wrong and still haven't proven one single thing, like science have.
To me, religion is a process. I'm not looking to it to give facts to everything but rather as a guideline towards a lifestyle structure. Almost like how the Buddhist crowd has tenants that they don't believe need to be upheld for someone to be considered Buddhist. And no, I'm not a Buddhist but I do enjoy reading a lot of Buddhist literature. I know it doesn't sound like a concept of religion that most people take to and I know I've explained it poorly. You can critique it as much as you want because it is hard for me to explain but at the end of the day I still consider myself religious.
I might be a science troll
You weren't really talking about science. You were just lashing out at religion for something that I honestly cannot say I've ever heard proclaimed in the accepted texts of any large religion. I still challenge you to find me where the concept of alien life or non-carbon based life is in conflict with religion. That's my thing about the whole religion-science debate.... both sides make really odd proclamations about the other side that simply aren't true. Do you really want to resolve this sticking point? If you do you need to, as a scientific person, drop the meme'ing of religion to the point that it makes you look stupid. Because, frankly, I think it discredits someone who claims to live by the rules of logic to make crap up. Sorry, but that's how I see it.
I would agree with you shouting down those who think the planet is only 6000 years old but I think those people are few and far between in today's world. But that's not what happened here.
I think it's high time that people on both sides of this debate get their heads out of their asses and accept that we're not going to get rid of everyone on one side of this debate with a magic wand and the world is going to come up roses for it. There is no reason for there to even be a conflict, AFAIC.
Will be VERY fun to hear the religious nuts explain this (not that they succeeded that well with intelligent design with just one type of life).
As a "religious nut" I fail to see the problem here. Can you quote me from any largely accepted religious texts that life only exists on Earth? I'm sure maybe one of them does, it has been a long time since I've read most of the major texts, but at this point you're just coming off as a troll. So I'm calling you out.... show me where it is written in the major texts that no life can exist beyond Earth or that all life must be carbon based.
Reading, cycling, target shooting, astronomy, music.... There's a million things to do. Stress doesn't make you a better worker so you may as well avoid it.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't speak for most states but in Pennsylvania you can refuse to take a test at the check point. At that point the officer has the right to take you into the police station/hospital and have breath, urine or blood tests done. If you refuse those tests it counts as an admission of built to DUI and the penalties are the same as a 2nd offense DUI.
I guess you can call anyplace that enforces laws a Nazi state by your standards.
I just feel pity for you that you're such a loon that you can't see that you're shitting on millions of graves of the innocent by the way you babble on.
Sure, we aren't singling out Jews and Gays, but isn't that in a way EVEN WORSE?
Yeah, all except that whole showering in a mist of Zyclon-B thing, ya know?
And it's not to say I disagree with your general position or that I care that you throw around the term Nazi a bit but let's try to keep some perspective here. Perspective is one of the things that is missing from a lot of posts on Slashdot and it kinda makes people sound like raving retards. Sorry, but that's the way I see it. By making reasonable arguments instead of frothing at the mouth you'll get much more support. And if you really think you need to jump to such hyperbole? Doesn't that make you question your logic in the first place?
They seem to enjoy using outdated stuff AND they love to not cite any deep sources.
This is truely ironic to read on Slashdot.
you're very wrong here. the impediments to a third party candidate are insurmountable.
This is because third parties are doing it wrong. They're trying to go for the brass ring when they hardly have a viable (ie. visible to the public) contender in the que. Third parties need to focus on state and local elections so that their party's platform gets known and established. This will help them gain momentum. With the funding that most third parties waste on presidential runs they could turn 3 or 4 small elections into victories where the candidates of the majors are soft.
For this reason I will not support a third party with donation but I will support individual candidates of a third party. Any money sent directly to the party will likely be wasted on pie-in-the-sky aspirations while viable candidates for lesser posts languish.
Birth Of A Nation was added in 1992.
90 USD/barrel today.
Find me a judge who'd consider this content secure and you might have a case. Sucks to be ignorant, doesn't it?
It wasn't an unsecured access point.
He's getting jail time for unauthorized access, he used software to overcome the security of the router. I would agree with the media that it is close enough to hacking. Now had he stumbled on his neighbors' (open) wifi while trying to connect to his own and gotten busted for child porn I would say the term hacking is a bit much.
His threats against Biden had nothing to do with politics. Had it been McCain in office Palin would have gotten the death threat instead. It seems that he wanted revenge against his neighbors and was sane enough to understand that the local cops were worthless in matters of cyber crime and wanted to insure that semi-competent agents of the law got involved.
Why let math stand in the way when there is partisan bickering to be had?
No, that just marked the 5th year of the beginning of the end. SyFy has been a disappointment for years.
First off, transparent != open source. That's a term that is thrown around way too much and because of this it is losing its focus.
I would like to think that if this is part of what the Gates Foundation is doing that it would fall under its transparency.
As for why wait? Everyone has to set a watermark. Perhaps something has happened in his personal situation that is allowing him to be more confident in his contributions. Perhaps he was "sold" on an idea that hadn't been proposed to him before. I think you're looking at the most based concept here and stretching it into things that it may or may not be and deciding from the worst case scenerio what the reality of it is. You don't know these facts any better than anyone else.
I wouldn't call it publishing... maybe aiding and abetting to publishing.
Well, seeings as where the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is run transparently, I'd like to think that if they were lying about the 20 million that they claim they gave to CMU last September that someone would call them out on it.
Seriously, I know how much people love to hate MS around here and how popular it is to believe that anyone who is rich who isn't running an open source foundation is nothing but a sack of shit but Gates runs a first rate charitable program. It's open and available for anyone to scrutinize.
Remember these people the next time you swing by WalMart and see someone with a cart full of smokes, junk food, Pixar DVDs and a new BluRay player who is moaning about things getting so bad economically that they're being forced to make the choice between medication and food.
Not to say that this is all of them, not by a long shot, but there are enough "working poor" who are poor because of their spending habbits and not because of their income. People who've gotten roped into 862 channels of garbage on their 52 inch LCD TVs and 5 MPG SUVs who complain about credit card interest rates just make me laugh anymore. The joke would be a lot better if I didn't have to pay for these deadbeats who falter on their debts through hidden charges and fees.
There is no easy answer but the fact that Bill Gates is rich doesn't mean that he's repressing anyone from taking hold of their own lives and bettering themselves.
The problem with small donations is that administrative costs of an organization can often eat up the lion's share of the donations. Having Gates plop down a billion dollars on a charity is a lot more streamlined then 10 million people giving a hundred dollars each. The simpler you keep book keeping the easier it is to uncover waste and fraud as well.
What do you mean "supposed to be"?
It seems that a lot of his wealth is already flowing and the guy is probably a couple decades from his death and he intends this funding to last 50 years after his death.
And while I agree that what SpaceX is doing is of great importance, I think that Bill's contributions to education is a much more worthy cause to invest in. Let SpaceX make their money, let Bill focus on the human element.
Not that interested about reading the whole bible (or another religious book), but I'm quite sure it does mention something about god creating the earth in 7 days and creating Adam and Eve and all earth life.
I must have missed the part of alien life in religious class in school.
Hmmm.... I don't recall the bible mentioning that God created hammerhead sharks but no religious person I know denies their existence. I guess I missed that too.
I'm quite sure few religious people accept alien life as gods children when they don't accept people without the same beliefs, for reference see Earth (you know all religious wars since the beginning of time).
Really? Do you honestly think most "religious" wars have anything to do with religion? Do you honestly believe that? And do you honestly believe that most people who believe in religion have any real interest in killing people from another religion? As a vast majority of people on the face of this planet are religious, our streets would run with blood on a global scale if this were true.
I don't see much difference between religion/churches and nazis, both have been killing other because they are different.
I see you're not much of a student on history either.
For me it's dirt simple. Either ALL religions are right, there are a god that everyone gets differently, or everyone is wrong. I fail to see how one can be right and all the other wrong.
So, if we find that there are two different theories in science either both of them have to be right or both of them is wrong and (since you want to use such a large brush) if either one of them is wrong that means all science is wrong? Do you really think about these things before you say them?
I don't want to be rude about this but you're just as guilty of making up whatever you think should be right and wrong and condemning others for it as the religious people you proclaim to be against. Give me a single logical reason that all religion must be right or if they're not than all of them are wrong?
And if you then think you are a religious nut, you are free to call me a nerd/geek/science nut or anything you like
I really don't know you and I don't know your background but how are you to determine that you're somehow more logic (science) based in reality than what anyone else is? There's a good chance that I give just as much merit to science as you do but at the same time I don't find a conflict between religion and science. Believe me, I do not come to Slashdot to read about comic books...
For me it hard to take religion seriously because over a thousand of years it has stated so many things wrong and still haven't proven one single thing, like science have.
To me, religion is a process. I'm not looking to it to give facts to everything but rather as a guideline towards a lifestyle structure. Almost like how the Buddhist crowd has tenants that they don't believe need to be upheld for someone to be considered Buddhist. And no, I'm not a Buddhist but I do enjoy reading a lot of Buddhist literature. I know it doesn't sound like a concept of religion that most people take to and I know I've explained it poorly. You can critique it as much as you want because it is hard for me to explain but at the end of the day I still consider myself religious.
I might be a science troll
You weren't really talking about science. You were just lashing out at religion for something that I honestly cannot say I've ever heard proclaimed in the accepted texts of any large religion. I still challenge you to find me where the concept of alien life or non-carbon based life is in conflict with religion. That's my thing about the whole religion-science debate.... both sides make really odd proclamations about the other side that simply aren't true. Do you really want to resolve this sticking point? If you do you need to, as a scientific person, drop the meme'ing of religion to the point that it makes you look stupid. Because, frankly, I think it discredits someone who claims to live by the rules of logic to make crap up. Sorry, but that's how I see it.
I would agree with you shouting down those who think the planet is only 6000 years old but I think those people are few and far between in today's world. But that's not what happened here.
I think it's high time that people on both sides of this debate get their heads out of their asses and accept that we're not going to get rid of everyone on one side of this debate with a magic wand and the world is going to come up roses for it. There is no reason for there to even be a conflict, AFAIC.
Columbus thought the world was round, and only because of that he wanted to go to sea...
Can we please please please put an end to this nonsense?
Will be VERY fun to hear the religious nuts explain this (not that they succeeded that well with intelligent design with just one type of life).
As a "religious nut" I fail to see the problem here. Can you quote me from any largely accepted religious texts that life only exists on Earth? I'm sure maybe one of them does, it has been a long time since I've read most of the major texts, but at this point you're just coming off as a troll. So I'm calling you out.... show me where it is written in the major texts that no life can exist beyond Earth or that all life must be carbon based.
The Canadians have the situation in hand.
Reading, cycling, target shooting, astronomy, music.... There's a million things to do. Stress doesn't make you a better worker so you may as well avoid it.