No, it means that, if you're feeling down, just accepting that you're down and keeping going is better than trying to find reasons why you're down. Getting over it is not required.
As far as applicability, lots of geeks suffer from depression.
Theaters do not profit from the ticket sales. This doesn't mean that they'd be just fine if they lowered the price, because if they did that they'd likely lose money.
I laughed my way through the new Ghostbusters movie. I'm not claiming it's a masterwork of cinematic art, but it was funny. The gender reversal was part of the humor.
There were lots of black cowboys back then, and the wizarding world was very much separate from the muggle world. Recall that two of the four houses at Hogwarts (Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff) were founded by women.
You're assuming that people like me, who see maybe four movies a year in theaters, will pay for the membership. I won't. There's nothing in it for me. Someone who would go to a movie every week will join, and cost them money.
The reason gym memberships work like that is that going to the gym is a good thing for us to do that we don't necessarily want to do. Therefore, we pay money because it's good for us, and don't go because it's a pain. Going to movies is not an inherently good thing. People do it only because they want to. Also, once a gym takes my membership money, it gets to keep it. It only has to spend on keeping the facilities up, and if I don't actually go and wear anything out, that's mostly profit.
There's a difference between blaming Muslims and blaming Nazis. There are hundreds of millions of halfway reasonable Muslims. It's a religion people are born into. Many of them hate others for being others, but not nearly all. There are no halfway reasonable Nazis. It isn't a religion, it's a radical political movement, much like some Muslim ones. They hate others for being others (or they wouldn't be Nazis).
Fairly simple consumer goods are usually made abroad. Making them in the US would raise their cost considerably, and make the US as a whole poorer, while it provided what would essentially be makework jobs.
There are groups with ideologies I really don't like. Some of them call themselves Nazis, and I call them Nazis. Some associate happily with Nazis and espouse the same sort of hateful ideology, and I often call them Nazis as a matter of convenience. The rest of the groups I call things like Republicans, fascists, dominionists, theocrats, etc. I try to be reasonably precise.
The only reason Communists got in the lead is that they had more time. Militarist Japan and Nazi Germany murdered people at very roughly twice the rate of the Soviet Union and Communist China. (Fascist Italy and the other Axis powers did not commit megamurders at all.) It's not that Germany and Japan were morally superior or even equal, it was that we took them down. Consider that Hitler convinced Russians that Stalin was a comparatively good choice, and the resistance against Nazis legitimized Communism in many places.
Blaming Socialists for the Communist atrocities is something like blaming Republicans for neo-Nazi atrocities. Communism has been pretty well debunked. People who now call themselves Socialist are actually in favor of capitalism with social responsibility. Heck, Otto von Bismarck was in favor of social programs, and he was very definitely not a Socialist.
The Nazis nowadays have roughly the same ideals as the Nazis my father fought. I was on a neo-Nazi mailing list for years, for some reason, and they're still for getting rid of non-whites and Jews. They still aren't interested in rational thought. I can explain WWII democratic capitalism in a way that makes sense. I can explain Soviet Communism in a way that makes sense (not to say that Communism made sense, but it had assumptions and reasoning from them). I can't explain Fascism in such a way, because as a movement it rejected materialism and reason.
If I physically attack a Nazi over what the Nazi says, I'm a criminal. If I denounce Nazis and what they say and what they stand for, I'm using my freedom of speech. If I refuse to deal with Nazis, I'm using other freedoms. The best you can say about Nazi speech is that it's actually legal in a country with very strong freedoms of speech.
It was necessary to win the wars as fast as possible (see above about megamurder rate), and bombing was a vital part of that. Under the lowest assumptions I can make about Chinese civilian deaths in 1945, and the rosiest estimates about when Japan would have given in, I find that the nukes killed fewer Japanese civilians than they saved Chinese civilians. Note also that Hiroshima was the headquarters of the defense of the island of Kyushu, and was swarming with soldiers, as opposed to women, children, and old folk.
The Axis started this business of bombing civilians indiscriminately. The Allies finished it. I hope we'll never have to pick it up again.
Ideally, step up into a lifeboat. (At least on the sloops I was on, the rule was "never step down to the life raft", since until the boat was actually sinking it was safer than the liferaft.)
Just because public death threats against the President of the US have been normalized in the public square doesn't mean they are any more acceptable now than they were before Trump's election
We appear to agree in thinking that the threats and vicious attacks against both Obama and family and Trump and family are wrong. Good.
Socialism, fascism, Nazism, and communism all have in common opposition to respecting and protecting human life and property.
Fascism (including National Socialism) was not against human property, as long as it belonged to people the government liked. It did oppose respecting and protecting human life. Communism was opposed to protecting either. They share the political attributes of collectivism and authoritarianism. So, these are common to the extreme left and the extreme right.
Socialism is a much more mixed bag. Communists were Socialists, but most Socialists aren't Communists. In the meantime, Socialism has changed its meaning from having the workers control the means of production to wanting society to take care of the less fortunate in various ways, since most people have realized that capitalism is necessary to run a modern economy.
The executive isn't acting alone and had a warrant..
I'm sure you can come up with examples of the judicial branch asking for and receiving (perhaps with a lot of judge shopping) a warrant that was part of executive overreach.
The Second has just been for show since 1986. That was the year it was made illegal to buy a nice new infantry rifle. (If the "militia" clause means anything at all, it means that individuals have the right to equip themselves with the same equipment soldiers get.)
Legally, there is no such thing as hate speech. In the US, that's an informal designation. Other countries have different laws.
Legally, a hate crime is a crime that is committed as part of intimidation of a group. Calling it a terrorist action would be about as accurate. It is one of the things judges take into consideration when deciding on sentences of people already convicted of a crime. Again, other countries may have different laws.
There are categories of speech that are illegal, usually since they are considered to be part of other acts. Libel and slander are illegal. Seriously discussing committing a crime is part of the crime. Fraud is fraud, by whatever means. Directly inciting violence is illegal by whatever means.
In this case, it appears that felonies were committed, and so the people involved should be investigated, and the people they appear to have discussed the crimes with should be investigated. There's probable cause, and warrants should be issued as needed. Investigating people in general is legal, if unproductive, as long as it doesn't require a warrant. Issuing a warrant for a very large group of people fails the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.
if you have a better idea for warrants I would love to hear it.
Personally, I was thinking that the Fourth Amendment had good ideas on warrants. This is not specific, and is largely not based on probable cause.
There was a website to organize protests. Some of the protests led to felonies. It's reasonable to assume that felonies were discussed on the website. So far, so good. Ask for details on the suspected felons, sure. (Note "suspected", since well-founded suspicion is plenty enough for a warrant.) Ask for details on people associated, sure. Ask for details on everyone who visited the site, no.
Actually, it legally becomes a crime if someone involved does anything that can be construed as being a preparation for the crime discussed.
Remember the idiots that were talking about sneaking into Fort Knox by posing as pizza deliverers? They were a bunch of harmless morons, and an FBI informant showed up. The informant got them to talk about the plan, and helped them with it. Then, when one of the idiots got a map of Fort Knox, came the arrests and the prevention of another terrorist attack by the FBI.
Which administration this was under doesn't matter because that's the sort of thing the FBI does. I'm not being partisan here.
So, please pardon me for being cynical about the government throwing out a large net and intending to file conspiracy charges.
It's standard to then issue a warrant to grab the site's data to investigate who else was involved in crimes, including conspiracy.
Standard to demand ID on all visitors? Certainly anyone who posted as part of a conspiracy to commit felonies needs to be investigated. Anyone who just visited the site wasn't part of that particular conspiracy, and having visited it isn't probable cause. I was on a neo-Nazi mailing list for quite a few years, and I've visited flaky sites for various reasons.
Those who did not commit crimes are in the clear.
Your faith in the rectitude of government, particularly the FBI, is touching.
Could we get a definite condemnation from Trump? The one he did was two days late, after earlier talk, and it was walked back with the approval of white supremacists, which apparently include fine people, according to Trump.
Boycott campaigns are legal, and at least reciprocal responses to things the President has done and said. I don't like Antifa any better than you do, and I'm a leftist. They represent us as well as the Nazis represent the right wing. Talking smack about the President's children is old hat. There have been paid provocateurs; the Bush administration used some of them. If you can track down who was paying a lot of them, I'd be interested. The IRS was faced with a large number of apparently political groups applying for non-profit status, and didn't really handle it well. Who from the last administration committed wrongdoing and not faced appropriate justice?
Traditionally, it appears that, if you're part of a President's family, you get the same crap tossed at you as at the President. I disapprove of this, but it sure didn't start with President Trump.
The "approved class" seems to be people who work with classified information. As far as I can tell, nobody's been prosecuted for inadvertantly mishandling classified information. Unless you're arguing that Clinton deliberately mishandled it, and you'll have to provide a motive to be believed, she was treated just like anyone else.
Morally, I consider it justified to punch someone out to avoid a worse immediate outcome, such as when said person throws the first punch. Not before, in general, not even for Nazis. Tactically, it's best if we leave the violence to the Nazis, because that makes them more obvious bad guys.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it means that, if you're feeling down, just accepting that you're down and keeping going is better than trying to find reasons why you're down. Getting over it is not required.
As far as applicability, lots of geeks suffer from depression.
Theaters do not profit from the ticket sales. This doesn't mean that they'd be just fine if they lowered the price, because if they did that they'd likely lose money.
I laughed my way through the new Ghostbusters movie. I'm not claiming it's a masterwork of cinematic art, but it was funny. The gender reversal was part of the humor.
There were lots of black cowboys back then, and the wizarding world was very much separate from the muggle world. Recall that two of the four houses at Hogwarts (Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff) were founded by women.
Some theaters suck. Some are nice.
You're assuming that people like me, who see maybe four movies a year in theaters, will pay for the membership. I won't. There's nothing in it for me. Someone who would go to a movie every week will join, and cost them money.
The reason gym memberships work like that is that going to the gym is a good thing for us to do that we don't necessarily want to do. Therefore, we pay money because it's good for us, and don't go because it's a pain. Going to movies is not an inherently good thing. People do it only because they want to. Also, once a gym takes my membership money, it gets to keep it. It only has to spend on keeping the facilities up, and if I don't actually go and wear anything out, that's mostly profit.
There's a difference between blaming Muslims and blaming Nazis. There are hundreds of millions of halfway reasonable Muslims. It's a religion people are born into. Many of them hate others for being others, but not nearly all. There are no halfway reasonable Nazis. It isn't a religion, it's a radical political movement, much like some Muslim ones. They hate others for being others (or they wouldn't be Nazis).
Actually, someone who takes a cell phone from a dying woman isn't even necessarily stealing it, although that's the most likely case.
Fairly simple consumer goods are usually made abroad. Making them in the US would raise their cost considerably, and make the US as a whole poorer, while it provided what would essentially be makework jobs.
There are groups with ideologies I really don't like. Some of them call themselves Nazis, and I call them Nazis. Some associate happily with Nazis and espouse the same sort of hateful ideology, and I often call them Nazis as a matter of convenience. The rest of the groups I call things like Republicans, fascists, dominionists, theocrats, etc. I try to be reasonably precise.
The only reason Communists got in the lead is that they had more time. Militarist Japan and Nazi Germany murdered people at very roughly twice the rate of the Soviet Union and Communist China. (Fascist Italy and the other Axis powers did not commit megamurders at all.) It's not that Germany and Japan were morally superior or even equal, it was that we took them down. Consider that Hitler convinced Russians that Stalin was a comparatively good choice, and the resistance against Nazis legitimized Communism in many places.
Blaming Socialists for the Communist atrocities is something like blaming Republicans for neo-Nazi atrocities. Communism has been pretty well debunked. People who now call themselves Socialist are actually in favor of capitalism with social responsibility. Heck, Otto von Bismarck was in favor of social programs, and he was very definitely not a Socialist.
The Nazis nowadays have roughly the same ideals as the Nazis my father fought. I was on a neo-Nazi mailing list for years, for some reason, and they're still for getting rid of non-whites and Jews. They still aren't interested in rational thought. I can explain WWII democratic capitalism in a way that makes sense. I can explain Soviet Communism in a way that makes sense (not to say that Communism made sense, but it had assumptions and reasoning from them). I can't explain Fascism in such a way, because as a movement it rejected materialism and reason.
If I physically attack a Nazi over what the Nazi says, I'm a criminal. If I denounce Nazis and what they say and what they stand for, I'm using my freedom of speech. If I refuse to deal with Nazis, I'm using other freedoms. The best you can say about Nazi speech is that it's actually legal in a country with very strong freedoms of speech.
It was necessary to win the wars as fast as possible (see above about megamurder rate), and bombing was a vital part of that. Under the lowest assumptions I can make about Chinese civilian deaths in 1945, and the rosiest estimates about when Japan would have given in, I find that the nukes killed fewer Japanese civilians than they saved Chinese civilians. Note also that Hiroshima was the headquarters of the defense of the island of Kyushu, and was swarming with soldiers, as opposed to women, children, and old folk.
The Axis started this business of bombing civilians indiscriminately. The Allies finished it. I hope we'll never have to pick it up again.
Ideally, step up into a lifeboat. (At least on the sloops I was on, the rule was "never step down to the life raft", since until the boat was actually sinking it was safer than the liferaft.)
We appear to agree in thinking that the threats and vicious attacks against both Obama and family and Trump and family are wrong. Good.
Fascism (including National Socialism) was not against human property, as long as it belonged to people the government liked. It did oppose respecting and protecting human life. Communism was opposed to protecting either. They share the political attributes of collectivism and authoritarianism. So, these are common to the extreme left and the extreme right.
Socialism is a much more mixed bag. Communists were Socialists, but most Socialists aren't Communists. In the meantime, Socialism has changed its meaning from having the workers control the means of production to wanting society to take care of the less fortunate in various ways, since most people have realized that capitalism is necessary to run a modern economy.
I'm sure you can come up with examples of the judicial branch asking for and receiving (perhaps with a lot of judge shopping) a warrant that was part of executive overreach.
The Second has just been for show since 1986. That was the year it was made illegal to buy a nice new infantry rifle. (If the "militia" clause means anything at all, it means that individuals have the right to equip themselves with the same equipment soldiers get.)
Legally, there is no such thing as hate speech. In the US, that's an informal designation. Other countries have different laws.
Legally, a hate crime is a crime that is committed as part of intimidation of a group. Calling it a terrorist action would be about as accurate. It is one of the things judges take into consideration when deciding on sentences of people already convicted of a crime. Again, other countries may have different laws.
There are categories of speech that are illegal, usually since they are considered to be part of other acts. Libel and slander are illegal. Seriously discussing committing a crime is part of the crime. Fraud is fraud, by whatever means. Directly inciting violence is illegal by whatever means.
In this case, it appears that felonies were committed, and so the people involved should be investigated, and the people they appear to have discussed the crimes with should be investigated. There's probable cause, and warrants should be issued as needed. Investigating people in general is legal, if unproductive, as long as it doesn't require a warrant. Issuing a warrant for a very large group of people fails the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.
Personally, I was thinking that the Fourth Amendment had good ideas on warrants. This is not specific, and is largely not based on probable cause.
There was a website to organize protests. Some of the protests led to felonies. It's reasonable to assume that felonies were discussed on the website. So far, so good. Ask for details on the suspected felons, sure. (Note "suspected", since well-founded suspicion is plenty enough for a warrant.) Ask for details on people associated, sure. Ask for details on everyone who visited the site, no.
Actually, it legally becomes a crime if someone involved does anything that can be construed as being a preparation for the crime discussed.
Remember the idiots that were talking about sneaking into Fort Knox by posing as pizza deliverers? They were a bunch of harmless morons, and an FBI informant showed up. The informant got them to talk about the plan, and helped them with it. Then, when one of the idiots got a map of Fort Knox, came the arrests and the prevention of another terrorist attack by the FBI.
Which administration this was under doesn't matter because that's the sort of thing the FBI does. I'm not being partisan here.
So, please pardon me for being cynical about the government throwing out a large net and intending to file conspiracy charges.
Standard to demand ID on all visitors? Certainly anyone who posted as part of a conspiracy to commit felonies needs to be investigated. Anyone who just visited the site wasn't part of that particular conspiracy, and having visited it isn't probable cause. I was on a neo-Nazi mailing list for quite a few years, and I've visited flaky sites for various reasons.
Your faith in the rectitude of government, particularly the FBI, is touching.
Could we get a definite condemnation from Trump? The one he did was two days late, after earlier talk, and it was walked back with the approval of white supremacists, which apparently include fine people, according to Trump.
Is it that hard to say that Nazis are bad?
Boycott campaigns are legal, and at least reciprocal responses to things the President has done and said. I don't like Antifa any better than you do, and I'm a leftist. They represent us as well as the Nazis represent the right wing. Talking smack about the President's children is old hat. There have been paid provocateurs; the Bush administration used some of them. If you can track down who was paying a lot of them, I'd be interested. The IRS was faced with a large number of apparently political groups applying for non-profit status, and didn't really handle it well. Who from the last administration committed wrongdoing and not faced appropriate justice?
Traditionally, it appears that, if you're part of a President's family, you get the same crap tossed at you as at the President. I disapprove of this, but it sure didn't start with President Trump.
The "approved class" seems to be people who work with classified information. As far as I can tell, nobody's been prosecuted for inadvertantly mishandling classified information. Unless you're arguing that Clinton deliberately mishandled it, and you'll have to provide a motive to be believed, she was treated just like anyone else.
Morally, I consider it justified to punch someone out to avoid a worse immediate outcome, such as when said person throws the first punch. Not before, in general, not even for Nazis. Tactically, it's best if we leave the violence to the Nazis, because that makes them more obvious bad guys.