Thank you for telling me what you've been lead to believe. I'll tell you that somebody making an argument like that, or using words like "chairperson", "spokesperson", "person-hours", or "he/she", will lead me to believe that the speaker wets his bed every night fretting about supposed chauvinism.
No. If I'm hosting a Web site, for example, this is a reason to avoid IPv6 entirely, since I can't expect all my n00b users to turn off 6to4 on their Macs.
This presents a reason to avoid IPv6 entirely until it's fixed. We'd like the transition to be smooth, such that it's already complete, before IPv4 addresses run out or become rare...
You really should use the volatile repository. It provides updated versions of packages that are required to change (like antivirus), compiled for stable. You end up with stable + required updates.
A creative work is not something naturally owned. It's not a tangible item that you have. Only a social contract allows you to simulate ownership, and to use words like "my", on something as vaporous as a creative work.
The default is for creative works to not be ownable.
Can you describe what the "activism" is that you deride?
Side A is saying "The Constitution says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, so the law that Congress made abridging the freedom of speech is unconstitutional".
Side B is coming up with all manner of hand-wringing, bed-wetting reasons, as usual, to simply ignore what the law says and rule some other way, because they feel like it.
You seem to be accusing Side A of activism. That's stupid.
Second, have you observed what the case in question was actually about? It was a group of concerned citizens who got together to produce and run a commercial describing their views.
Your position is that making that illegal is not a violation of free speech. Your position is wrong.
Congress is forbidden from making laws restricting the freedom of speech.
Despite this, it's currently okay to place "time and place" restrictions on it.
SCOTUS determined that it's definitely crossing the line to include restrictions based on who is doing the speaking.
Would you prefer that the government be allowed to determine who may speak and who may not? If you would, then you may attempt to amend the Constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
You've just used "himself" exclusively, four times, as the generic pronoun referring to people of either sex.
Although this is correct, you have blasted anyone using it as sexist. What are we to conclude?
Is that you?
Thank you for telling me what you've been lead to believe. I'll tell you that somebody making an argument like that, or using words like "chairperson", "spokesperson", "person-hours", or "he/she", will lead me to believe that the speaker wets his bed every night fretting about supposed chauvinism.
I would say the irrational thing is to draw a female fireman, whatever the reason.
Not only that, "person-hours" is one of the stupidest phrases I've run across in a while.
Look, there's nothing wrong with "man". It referred to "human" long before it referred to "male human". Just live with it: the word is man-hours!
You need to use the vocative case there, not the nominative.
Irony? The two who are most often right are right about this one as well. That's not even surprising.
What amendment is that violating exactly? Not that I disagree....
9th and 10th.
...Why? Certainly from the end-user perspective, it could still be quite smooth, if not for an issue like this.
No. If I'm hosting a Web site, for example, this is a reason to avoid IPv6 entirely, since I can't expect all my n00b users to turn off 6to4 on their Macs.
This presents a reason to avoid IPv6 entirely until it's fixed. We'd like the transition to be smooth, such that it's already complete, before IPv4 addresses run out or become rare...
Why is that strange? Wouldn't you expect the electric utility to be much more efficient at producing electricity?
Try it again.
This is a major check on the power of government which has been all but ignored.
If you are on a jury, you may acquit for any reason. The judge won't tell you that, but it's true.
Tell me we're not doing remote sensing experiments on the ISS!
You really should use the volatile repository. It provides updated versions of packages that are required to change (like antivirus), compiled for stable. You end up with stable + required updates.
A library archiving your work does not necessarily imply that you don't own the copyright on it.
We're all very quick to hit Google when they do something wrong. This one pretty clearly is "do no evil". Thanks Google!
It's pretty much the only option for printing from a browser without requiring a prompt. (And printing in text mode, too.)
This part of the project isn't for general consumption, though; it's only for customers who need this particular functionality.
A creative work is not something naturally owned. It's not a tangible item that you have. Only a social contract allows you to simulate ownership, and to use words like "my", on something as vaporous as a creative work.
The default is for creative works to not be ownable.
Just recently, not a single Republican voted for the most massive freedom->"security" bill ever.
Then your fight is to amend the Constitution. I'm not saying you're right about your blind corporation hatred, but then I'll at least listen.
At the moment, though, you're endorsing judicial activism, at the same time claiming that your opponents are.
How shall I sum up your position... Ah yes:
in short, be intellectually honest or shut the fuck up
Can you describe what the "activism" is that you deride?
Side A is saying "The Constitution says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, so the law that Congress made abridging the freedom of speech is unconstitutional".
Side B is coming up with all manner of hand-wringing, bed-wetting reasons, as usual, to simply ignore what the law says and rule some other way, because they feel like it.
You seem to be accusing Side A of activism. That's stupid.
First, calm down.
Second, have you observed what the case in question was actually about? It was a group of concerned citizens who got together to produce and run a commercial describing their views.
Your position is that making that illegal is not a violation of free speech. Your position is wrong.
Congress is forbidden from making laws restricting the freedom of speech.
Despite this, it's currently okay to place "time and place" restrictions on it.
SCOTUS determined that it's definitely crossing the line to include restrictions based on who is doing the speaking.
Would you prefer that the government be allowed to determine who may speak and who may not? If you would, then you may attempt to amend the Constitution.