You win some, you lose some. Mr. Holder is a lot like just about everybody else in the government. They do a lot of good and a lot of evil, and it's all mixed up together. When they say or do good things you give them credit. When they say and do evil things you lambaste them. Or would you rather not run your life by ethics and logic?
afraid of letting Obama get more power to control private companies
President Obama != the FCC. The FCC is an independent authority. It doesn't answer to any President, although it can be circumscribed by laws. The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the U.S. president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate for five-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The president designates one of the commissioners to serve as chairman. Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them may have a financial interest in any FCC-related business.
there is actually *no* prohibition [of blasphemy] in the Quran... the Quran decrees no earthly punishment for blasphemy — or for apostasy (abandonment or renunciation of the faith), a related concept.
Koran (4:89) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."
Is there some problem with the translation? Seems fairly clear to me.
That's not necessary. My backup is mounted read-only via nfs, and when I am running backups they are done by rsync via ssh. Actually I have two backups on two separate hosts and only one is nfs mounted, but that is a detail.
Bourne sh, POSIX sh, and bash globbing all suck because, while handy in very simple situations, they are not REs, not very versatile/capable, and not very intuitive. It's not that you CAN'T DO what you need to do; it's that you have to approach the problem uniquely.
To match via globbing any file or directory starting with one or more dots, but exclude dot and dot-dot standalone pseudo-links, I believe the most efficient recourse is the somewhat perverse: ls -d1.[^.]*..?*
which is quite an indictment of obstinate design stupidity. REs are better, but still a minefield. The best I can come with using REs are: ls -a | grep '^\..*[^.][^.]*$' and the slightly more concise ls -a | egrep '^\.+[^.]+$'
I will leave it as an exercise to ponder why you need the -d but not the -a in the first form, but must use the -a and NOT the -d in the last two forms. It's pretty disgusting when you work out EXACTLY how those options work. The -1 is not necessary in the second two cases because the pipeline magically changes the output format.
Hopefully the Republican Congress will now find some balls and defund the EPA.
I happen to think the EPA needs some reigning-in in certain respects, but what's it like puffing on that crack pipe? Congress is not going to "defund" anything; most certainly nothing as widely supported as the EPA. Hoping that it will is dreaming a particularly STUPID fairy tale.
Careful; you're effectively exploding some myths and fairy tales.
One more thing you didn't mention so I will. The EPA was not just enacted during Nixon's (R) tenure; it was PROPOSED by Nixon. Actually, the EPA was created by Executive Order, submitted to Congress (symbolically?) for approval, and approved.
As a one-time alleged reactionary, so far today, I'm either 100% with him, or 50-50. I completely agree with him on the internet; not so sure about this one, but I'm not close-minded. If the cost of compliance is not exorbitant, I suppose there is nothing wrong with this. At least it would reduce some blatant waste.
Oh come now. Lobbying is not about Joe Blow talking to his rep. In this case, Wikipedia hits the nail on the head. "Lobbying in the United States describes paid activity in which special interests hire well-connected professional advocates, often lawyers, to argue for specific legislation..." It's all about influence and skirting the rules with a wink and a nod. It's a BUSINESS, and it's dirty.
Letting some punk of a congressman drive an expensive car you provide and fuel is bribery. Treating him to dinner is bribery. Worming your way into his confidence with fake friendship and solicitude is a form of bribery too.
do you think that the NAACP, or the AARP, or the Sierra Club, or the NRA, or labor unions or other groups should be barred from taking their concerns to their elected representatives in a unified way
Yes, when "taking their concerns" is via highly sophisticated lobbying. Let the write letters and send emails like anybody else.
We have proto-law in the form of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech". So long as that provision is not amended via Constitutional process, do you see any wiggle room there? Hemming and hawing doesn't count.
As it stands, any Federal law whatsoever abridging freedom of speech in any manner is null and void on the face of it. But this in no way restricts the laws of individual states.
and damn well the protection of free speech should mean that you can say anything you want without legal consequences
No it doesn't. If I publically incite/encourage harm against a group of people and they come to harm then I should face the consequences even if all I did was talk. If I was the cause of the harm then I'm responsible. You're free to say what you want but you're also responsible for what you say.
That has validity, so long as one understands that the crime of incitement is a very slippery slope. Objectively there is a huge fundamental difference between saying "jews are all evil bastards and all jews should be killed", and "faggots are disgusting" or "muslims are intolerant and dangerous". Anyone with a working sense of logic should agree that the first steps over the line and needs SOME sanction (exactly what sanction is saved for another discussion), and the others are nothing more than the expression of the right NOT TO LIKE.
There can be no guarantee that everybody likes everybody and everything, or even that nobody is allowed to express dislike or fear or disgust. Yet many such expressions have come to be regarded as "hate speech" against protected minorities, and prosecuted or suppressed as such by the force of the law.
Of course the goal of suppressing hate cannot be thus achieved at all. The only achievement is an atmosphere of repression.
Seriously? Do you think everybody in the world should be subject to the laws of all 196 countries in the world? The only way the US could get its claws on a foreign national residing in his own native country would be rendition or kidnapping. I doubt Canada would extradite a Canadian citizen to the US. The response would probably be something like "are you fucking kidding me?". If it was a case of country A requesting the extradition from country B of a citizen of country A, or in extraordinary circumstances even country C, visiting country B, it would be somewhat less unlikely.
Whether or not you see a blue screen with a lot of text on it is beside the point. Every OS can potentially panic. Even if it's configured to paper over the problem by doing it quietly and rebooting, the system has gone tits up.
Yes, it is a very true observation that both the bible and the koran are full of vengefulness. But there is a distinction you fail to note. Christ and the new testament form a tremendous moderating influence. That is not the case with the koran. Mohammed was an evil vengeful bastard, and the koran is full of vengefulness from one end to the other. Relativism doesn't fly here.
Being against violent religious zealotry is not racism. I believe on reflection you would rather agree with that than be a fool. Religion is not race[*]. The most you can go for is labeling it xenophobia, but as we see below, there is excellent genuine foundation for being highly suspicious of whether huge numbers of Muslims are civilized at all.
And I see you have absolutely nothing to say about the substance of GP's post, which is that a study found that majorities of Muslims who favor sharia law also favor murdering "apostates" who "abandon Islam", in Malaysia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, and "Palestine". I'll make it easy for you. Just turn to page 55 in the highly detailed 2013 Pew study.
Sure, one has to be careful that their brush does not colour too universally. For example (page 46), only 17% of Muslim Turks who favor sharia believe apostates should be murdered, and only 12% of Turks favor making sharia the law of the land (as opposed, for example, to 91% of Iraqis and a whopping 99% of Afghanis.
[*] In fact, there is anthropologically only one human "race" in existence in the modern world.
On another --similarly surprising-- news, Marine LePen is thinking aloud about death penalty in France... little dirty agendas... blah blah
Do you have a problem in principle with liquidating scum like these two, or do you just stay awake at night worrying about corner cases where the death penalty gets misapplied? Just trying to identify where your weird thoughts come from.
We are not saying their job is easy. We are saying they are doing a very bad job with what they have. Giving them more power would be just enabling more of a bad job.
Take the no-fly list for example. You have allegedly identified people whom you are afraid to let fly, even though the claim is that flights are perfectly safe now. Why in hell are you letting these allegedly fearsome people roam about freely as long as they don't fly? Not only does it make no sense, it is so daft as to beggar belief.
Slashdot Mirror
You win some, you lose some. Mr. Holder is a lot like just about everybody else in the government. They do a lot of good and a lot of evil, and it's all mixed up together. When they say or do good things you give them credit. When they say and do evil things you lambaste them. Or would you rather not run your life by ethics and logic?
President Obama != the FCC. The FCC is an independent authority. It doesn't answer to any President, although it can be circumscribed by laws. The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the U.S. president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate for five-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The president designates one of the commissioners to serve as chairman. Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them may have a financial interest in any FCC-related business.
Koran (4:89) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."
Is there some problem with the translation? Seems fairly clear to me.
That's not necessary. My backup is mounted read-only via nfs, and when I am running backups they are done by rsync via ssh. Actually I have two backups on two separate hosts and only one is nfs mounted, but that is a detail.
Bourne sh, POSIX sh, and bash globbing all suck because, while handy in very simple situations, they are not REs, not very versatile/capable, and not very intuitive. It's not that you CAN'T DO what you need to do; it's that you have to approach the problem uniquely.
To match via globbing any file or directory starting with one or more dots, but exclude dot and dot-dot standalone pseudo-links, I believe the most efficient recourse is the somewhat perverse: .[^.]* ..?*
ls -d1
which is quite an indictment of obstinate design stupidity. REs are better, but still a minefield. The best I can come with using REs are:
ls -a | grep '^\..*[^.][^.]*$'
and the slightly more concise
ls -a | egrep '^\.+[^.]+$'
I will leave it as an exercise to ponder why you need the -d but not the -a in the first form, but must use the -a and NOT the -d in the last two forms. It's pretty disgusting when you work out EXACTLY how those options work. The -1 is not necessary in the second two cases because the pipeline magically changes the output format.
TrueOS is just FreeBSD with some very minor additional utilities thrown in - and no support for x86 32 bit.
I happen to think the EPA needs some reigning-in in certain respects, but what's it like puffing on that crack pipe? Congress is not going to "defund" anything; most certainly nothing as widely supported as the EPA. Hoping that it will is dreaming a particularly STUPID fairy tale.
Not nearly as significant as the remaining 91% of greenhouse gas emissions, eh?
Careful; you're effectively exploding some myths and fairy tales.
One more thing you didn't mention so I will. The EPA was not just enacted during Nixon's (R) tenure; it was PROPOSED by Nixon. Actually, the EPA was created by Executive Order, submitted to Congress (symbolically?) for approval, and approved.
Pendant watches are coming back :-)
As a one-time alleged reactionary, so far today, I'm either 100% with him, or 50-50. I completely agree with him on the internet; not so sure about this one, but I'm not close-minded. If the cost of compliance is not exorbitant, I suppose there is nothing wrong with this. At least it would reduce some blatant waste.
Oh come now. Lobbying is not about Joe Blow talking to his rep. In this case, Wikipedia hits the nail on the head. "Lobbying in the United States describes paid activity in which special interests hire well-connected professional advocates, often lawyers, to argue for specific legislation..." It's all about influence and skirting the rules with a wink and a nod. It's a BUSINESS, and it's dirty.
Letting some punk of a congressman drive an expensive car you provide and fuel is bribery. Treating him to dinner is bribery. Worming your way into his confidence with fake friendship and solicitude is a form of bribery too.
Yes, when "taking their concerns" is via highly sophisticated lobbying. Let the write letters and send emails like anybody else.
Sigh. 3.80 on Cape Cod. Apparently just because they can.
We have proto-law in the form of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". So long as that provision is not amended via Constitutional process, do you see any wiggle room there? Hemming and hawing doesn't count.
As it stands, any Federal law whatsoever abridging freedom of speech in any manner is null and void on the face of it. But this in no way restricts the laws of individual states.
He's on the money, though, isn't he? Doesn't change the message.
That has validity, so long as one understands that the crime of incitement is a very slippery slope. Objectively there is a huge fundamental difference between saying "jews are all evil bastards and all jews should be killed", and "faggots are disgusting" or "muslims are intolerant and dangerous". Anyone with a working sense of logic should agree that the first steps over the line and needs SOME sanction (exactly what sanction is saved for another discussion), and the others are nothing more than the expression of the right NOT TO LIKE.
There can be no guarantee that everybody likes everybody and everything, or even that nobody is allowed to express dislike or fear or disgust. Yet many such expressions have come to be regarded as "hate speech" against protected minorities, and prosecuted or suppressed as such by the force of the law.
Of course the goal of suppressing hate cannot be thus achieved at all. The only achievement is an atmosphere of repression.
Seriously? Do you think everybody in the world should be subject to the laws of all 196 countries in the world? The only way the US could get its claws on a foreign national residing in his own native country would be rendition or kidnapping. I doubt Canada would extradite a Canadian citizen to the US. The response would probably be something like "are you fucking kidding me?". If it was a case of country A requesting the extradition from country B of a citizen of country A, or in extraordinary circumstances even country C, visiting country B, it would be somewhat less unlikely.
And Pu-239 has a half life of 24,100 years.
Whether or not you see a blue screen with a lot of text on it is beside the point. Every OS can potentially panic. Even if it's configured to paper over the problem by doing it quietly and rebooting, the system has gone tits up.
Rolls eyes helplessly at the depth of ignorance.
Yes, it is a very true observation that both the bible and the koran are full of vengefulness. But there is a distinction you fail to note. Christ and the new testament form a tremendous moderating influence. That is not the case with the koran. Mohammed was an evil vengeful bastard, and the koran is full of vengefulness from one end to the other. Relativism doesn't fly here.
Being against violent religious zealotry is not racism. I believe on reflection you would rather agree with that than be a fool. Religion is not race[*]. The most you can go for is labeling it xenophobia, but as we see below, there is excellent genuine foundation for being highly suspicious of whether huge numbers of Muslims are civilized at all.
And I see you have absolutely nothing to say about the substance of GP's post, which is that a study found that majorities of Muslims who favor sharia law also favor murdering "apostates" who "abandon Islam", in Malaysia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, and "Palestine". I'll make it easy for you. Just turn to page 55 in the highly detailed 2013 Pew study.
Sure, one has to be careful that their brush does not colour too universally. For example (page 46), only 17% of Muslim Turks who favor sharia believe apostates should be murdered, and only 12% of Turks favor making sharia the law of the land (as opposed, for example, to 91% of Iraqis and a whopping 99% of Afghanis.
[*] In fact, there is anthropologically only one human "race" in existence in the modern world.
The fallacy of the fairy tale you WISH were true.
Do you have a problem in principle with liquidating scum like these two, or do you just stay awake at night worrying about corner cases where the death penalty gets misapplied? Just trying to identify where your weird thoughts come from.
We are not saying their job is easy. We are saying they are doing a very bad job with what they have. Giving them more power would be just enabling more of a bad job.
Take the no-fly list for example. You have allegedly identified people whom you are afraid to let fly, even though the claim is that flights are perfectly safe now. Why in hell are you letting these allegedly fearsome people roam about freely as long as they don't fly? Not only does it make no sense, it is so daft as to beggar belief.