That assumes your position is 'right'. If I consider mine 'right', there's no reason why I should change to get your vote. You should change and then I would get your vote.
1 Democrat in 25 years. He was the most conservative of all of them. So why are the rest moving more left?
They should modify or hide their beliefs to get more votes?
The Democrats (and other parties) shouldn't be asking "How can we be more like the other people" but rather "How can the other people be more like us".
OK, your work days are pretty much spent at work. Use the other three days for your main exercise (generally 3-4 days of exercise per week is well adequate).
It looks like a roundtrip to work, for you, is three hours, so that does give you time to take a short half-an-hour to three-quarter-hour jog/walk around the block (take the wife/kids along, if any) after you get back or before you go, depending on the hours.
Do something at work, too, stand instead of sitting if possible (burns about 300-500 calories compared to sitting and strengthens the midsection), pack your lunch, do yoga on lunchbreak etc.
Why is anything that a left-winger or European (Ha!) disagrees with immediately decided to be the workings of the mystical "religious right"?
Because it, by and large, is.
None of my family is religious.
Yay.
But none of us voted for Kerry.
Boo.
Are we just seriously fucked up then?
You may be suffering from the "'Mrrica are teh great" syndrome.
On top of that, since when is being religious a bad thing?
Since the first guy who couldn't explain a lightning bolt decided it had to be some m4d 1337 invisible guy tossing those around as punishment for getting into other people's preserved mammoth.
That being said, would you like to buy a flower to benefit our temple?
Ah, you are mistaken. That demonstrator was just not in the appointed 'free-speech zone' and was carefully redirected there. His 'zany' plaque was encased in bubble wrap so it wouldn't be harmed during transit.
The German authorities were just trying to make Bush feel at home.
What is the relationship between Minneapolis and St. Paul? None whatsoever. What is the relationship between Los Angeles and San Francisco? None whatsoever. What is the relationship between California and Oregon? None whatsoever.
M&SP and LA&SF are cities in a state, they have a common interest in the affairs of that state. California and Oregon are states in a federation, they have a common interest in the affairs of that federation.
Similarly, if Bob and Jen are persons in a family, they have a common interest in the affairs of that family. If the U.S. and Canada are countries in a world, they have a common interest in the affairs of that world. Etc.
You argue--quite elaborately, I like it--that such a law were 'tyrannical' on the premise that it is illegitimate.
Any such UN action would be precisely agreed upon by the member states; any contract or treaty that your nation enters may be considered such which you have 'grievance' in: don't elect the same folks the next time. Therefore, it should be considered a legitimate action.
Yes, if the UN just states they'll take over the Internet, that's one thing (if they were indeed able to do so, it would indeed be tyrannical regardless of how they did their job). However, if the elected representatives of your country (wrt. 'grievance') agree to enter such a treaty/contract, it should be considered valid.
You're confusing our system with a parliamentary system. In our system -- which some folks call a "presidential" system, but that's just a name -- we don't have factions or coalitions.
Ah. Yes, it's one big happy family in the U.S. government. No sort of partisanship whatsoever. A faction, in this context, is any group with similar interests and votes in a particular situation. If I had meant a 'party', I would have said 'party'. If I had meant a 'coalition', I would have said 'coalition'.
I can appreciate that you want to deal in concrete terms (and apparently enjoy condecension), but statements such as "Because the UN is not a legitimate body" betray a skewed view of laws and legitimacy.
There's nothing that makes, for example, the U.S. constitution a more valid legal document than a hypothetical 'Citizen of the World' agreement. It's just another contract between persons; it may be modified, it may be annulled, it may be ignored, it may be replaced or it may be adhered. Regardless of whether you feel it's the Word of God Upon His Blessed People (or whatever your particular belief happens to be), in this world its value and obligation is the same as any other contract's; arguably less since it's imposed on you (one can always emigrate but it's not quite that easy).
In conclusion, any mandate given to any international body should be considered legitimate and valid in all the nations that ratified that mandate.
The world is just like a nation at a different scale; each country is a person.
Except it's not. A country is not a person. A country is not a citizen. A country has no unalienable rights, no sovereign franchise.
These are fundamental ideas in political philosophy. It's going to be very hard to get around them. In a nutshell, it is the individual, not any kind of group or collective unit, political or otherwise, that has the power. We have the right to establish governments for ourselves, and we have the right to dismiss those governments when we find that they no longer suit our needs. In this way, individuals are fundamentally different from collective units like nations.
Arguing about any innate rights is a whole other thread, but just like a handful of people make a town, a handful of towns make a county and a handful of counties make a country, a handful of countries can be perceived as making a 'town'; generally, if we say that the 'U.S. is doing something', the reference is to the outwardly politics of the government of that country, for which purpose the parties within that country who disagree are ignored. Similarly, biologically, there are competing impulses within one person, but the dominant ones will be perceived as acting for the whole.
Now, there may have been a misunderstanding on my part; I was specifically referring to relations between nations, not between individuals in those nations.
There isn't, however, any inherent reason why a 'supranational' judicial system were 'tyrannical', at least to any greater degree than a national system is, precisely because of the differences between people. Surely a law, say, banning abortion within the U.S. isn't any more tyrannical than, say, an international law banning piracy.
Because I didn't have the opportunity to vote on it in a referendum, nor did I have the chance to elect the people who passed it. It's not binding. It's not a law at all. See?
Er, you don't really get to vote for these things anyway. If the U.S. government were to ban blue cars, it would be because in the competition between certain factions in the government, the anti-blue were victorious. You voted for your guy, but the others had more power. Similarly, if the guy you voted for (the U.S.) were to lose a vote in the UN, you'd be bound by it. It's all the same, just at a greater scale.
The world is just like a nation at a different scale; each country is a person. Currently most see no problems with laws governing persons within a country, logically, there should be no problems with laws governing nations, either.
Just because most people are stupid, greedy and malicious doesn't mean that the idea is bad.
Maybe the USPTO should have some sort of a public correspondence site where one could reference a TM or C or P by its number and e.g. point out that this same thing has been done for the past twenty years.
On the other hand, maybe with all the inevitable "M$ is t3H suX0r, dnut garnt n-A PATENTS 2 theys you a55hat!" comments isn't worth it.
I'm certainly no crypto expert. Is it even potentially possible to devise an unbreakable crypt/hash algorithm? As I understand, even the quantum crypto thing-o'magic would only reveal if the message had been compromised but not prevent that happening? All the literature I've read suggests that we're working from an unfeasibility standpoint, not an impossibility-one.
Slashdot Mirror
That assumes your position is 'right'. If I consider mine 'right', there's no reason why I should change to get your vote. You should change and then I would get your vote.
Er, references are not polymorphic? Surely you're on crack?
Just to answer your sig.
They should modify or hide their beliefs to get more votes?
The Democrats (and other parties) shouldn't be asking "How can we be more like the other people" but rather "How can the other people be more like us".
Well, he did restrict the rules from what Clinton wanted.
Hehe. Thoughtless drones.
Posting on slashdot!
You're going for a '+1 funny', huh?
...And this concludes our introductory lecture "It's true, no-one else knows what the hell they're doing either". Any questions?
No?
Thank you all for coming, the next "Corporations 101" lecture will be monday. Bring your notebooks.
OK, your work days are pretty much spent at work. Use the other three days for your main exercise (generally 3-4 days of exercise per week is well adequate).
It looks like a roundtrip to work, for you, is three hours, so that does give you time to take a short half-an-hour to three-quarter-hour jog/walk around the block (take the wife/kids along, if any) after you get back or before you go, depending on the hours.
Do something at work, too, stand instead of sitting if possible (burns about 300-500 calories compared to sitting and strengthens the midsection), pack your lunch, do yoga on lunchbreak etc.
Yeah, gee, wonder why a tutorial would need to be read by an uninitiated person to ensure it actually teaches something. What a sham.
Good for you. Seriously.
You should be worried, what with the things the way they're going.
:)
You'll probably be drafted to the military and then BoA will lose all your stuff too
Because it, by and large, is.
Yay.
Boo.
You may be suffering from the "'Mrrica are teh great" syndrome.
Since the first guy who couldn't explain a lightning bolt decided it had to be some m4d 1337 invisible guy tossing those around as punishment for getting into other people's preserved mammoth.
That being said, would you like to buy a flower to benefit our temple?
People don't matter, I think was the point, just the money.
The GP's accusation is somewhat diminished by the fact that the power industry actually moves more money, but the general sentiment is valid.
Ah, you are mistaken. That demonstrator was just not in the appointed 'free-speech zone' and was carefully redirected there. His 'zany' plaque was encased in bubble wrap so it wouldn't be harmed during transit.
The German authorities were just trying to make Bush feel at home.
FIRE, fire, everybody out!!!
M&SP and LA&SF are cities in a state, they have a common interest in the affairs of that state. California and Oregon are states in a federation, they have a common interest in the affairs of that federation.
Similarly, if Bob and Jen are persons in a family, they have a common interest in the affairs of that family. If the U.S. and Canada are countries in a world, they have a common interest in the affairs of that world. Etc.
You argue--quite elaborately, I like it--that such a law were 'tyrannical' on the premise that it is illegitimate.
Any such UN action would be precisely agreed upon by the member states; any contract or treaty that your nation enters may be considered such which you have 'grievance' in: don't elect the same folks the next time. Therefore, it should be considered a legitimate action.
Yes, if the UN just states they'll take over the Internet, that's one thing (if they were indeed able to do so, it would indeed be tyrannical regardless of how they did their job). However, if the elected representatives of your country (wrt. 'grievance') agree to enter such a treaty/contract, it should be considered valid.
Ah. Yes, it's one big happy family in the U.S. government. No sort of partisanship whatsoever. A faction, in this context, is any group with similar interests and votes in a particular situation. If I had meant a 'party', I would have said 'party'. If I had meant a 'coalition', I would have said 'coalition'.
I can appreciate that you want to deal in concrete terms (and apparently enjoy condecension), but statements such as
"Because the UN is not a legitimate body" betray a skewed view of laws and legitimacy.
There's nothing that makes, for example, the U.S. constitution a more valid legal document than a hypothetical 'Citizen of the World' agreement. It's just another contract between persons; it may be modified, it may be annulled, it may be ignored, it may be replaced or it may be adhered. Regardless of whether you feel it's the Word of God Upon His Blessed People (or whatever your particular belief happens to be), in this world its value and obligation is the same as any other contract's; arguably less since it's imposed on you (one can always emigrate but it's not quite that easy).
In conclusion, any mandate given to any international body should be considered legitimate and valid in all the nations that ratified that mandate.
.
P.S. How's the old ticker?
Arguing about any innate rights is a whole other thread, but just like a handful of people make a town, a handful of towns make a county and a handful of counties make a country, a handful of countries can be perceived as making a 'town'; generally, if we say that the 'U.S. is doing something', the reference is to the outwardly politics of the government of that country, for which purpose the parties within that country who disagree are ignored. Similarly, biologically, there are competing impulses within one person, but the dominant ones will be perceived as acting for the whole.
Now, there may have been a misunderstanding on my part; I was specifically referring to relations between nations, not between individuals in those nations.
There isn't, however, any inherent reason why a 'supranational' judicial system were 'tyrannical', at least to any greater degree than a national system is, precisely because of the differences between people. Surely a law, say, banning abortion within the U.S. isn't any more tyrannical than, say, an international law banning piracy.
Er, you don't really get to vote for these things anyway. If the U.S. government were to ban blue cars, it would be because in the competition between certain factions in the government, the anti-blue were victorious. You voted for your guy, but the others had more power. Similarly, if the guy you voted for (the U.S.) were to lose a vote in the UN, you'd be bound by it. It's all the same, just at a greater scale.
How is it 'tyrannical', again?
The world is just like a nation at a different scale; each country is a person. Currently most see no problems with laws governing persons within a country, logically, there should be no problems with laws governing nations, either.
Just because most people are stupid, greedy and malicious doesn't mean that the idea is bad.
Let's define 'spam' as an 'unsolicited entity within your personal perimeter'. Then let's define 'bacteria'.
We could also start arguing for the rights of bacteria and virii who are, after all, just trying to make a living. If you'd like.
How, I poked around their site for a while but didn't see anything?
Maybe the USPTO should have some sort of a public correspondence site where one could reference a TM or C or P by its number and e.g. point out that this same thing has been done for the past twenty years.
On the other hand, maybe with all the inevitable "M$ is t3H suX0r, dnut garnt n-A PATENTS 2 theys you a55hat!" comments isn't worth it.
Pun. Sorry.
I'm certainly no crypto expert. Is it even potentially possible to devise an unbreakable crypt/hash algorithm? As I understand, even the quantum crypto thing-o'magic would only reveal if the message had been compromised but not prevent that happening? All the literature I've read suggests that we're working from an unfeasibility standpoint, not an impossibility-one.
Key word being compensation. You can give it away for free :)
I was going to post a dastardly riposte to this by using ASCII shapes and diagrams.
Goddamn lameness filter.