How in the world do you goldbugs manage to ignore the hundreds if not thousands of years of silver currency? And since when do you trust a bank to not lie to you if some of their gold gets stolen? It's not even money, just another commodity (and no, that is not the same at all), I'd rather have proper, diversified investments.
To be fair bitcoins are quite a bit more traceable than cash, you'd need a fair amount of resources to untangle all of the dummy accounts (if peope are smart enough to use dummy accounts), but at some point or another a good number of users will turn the anonymosly traceable bitcoins into less traceable cash (tracing by serial numbers is really hard). If you can get your hands on that information (by, say, running a bitcoin exchange or two and hacking a few more) and correlate to bitcoin tranaction logs you will get a fair amount of information. AInvolved, but not impossible for a government or large corporation.
To put it another way, they are giving away peanuts in bandwidth (particularly considering that hardly any of those connections will be saturated) in exchange for people giving permission and paying for a fiber connection to their house. 5/1 for 7 years in exchange for an explosion in infrastructure that could be switched to a paying connection by the user without additional connection fees? Sounds like they found a good deal both ways.
The part you don't seem to grasp is that substantial here is about functionality (e.g. you can upload your wedding videos instead of mailing DVDs), not quantity (e.g. only $ASSPULL_STATISTIC percent of the users upload wedding videos).
They shouldn't take it kindly at all, it's gross negligence on the part of their IT staff to not set up secure communications channels. It's not the fault of the airports, hotels or coffee shops. If you are connecting to essentially random open hotspots that might, or might not, be provided by whatever establishment and not encrypting your connections you are at high risk, Germany or elsewhere.
Apparently including the flow of msauve's contact information. If the Founding Fathers thought privacy in the age of massive databases and real-time communication was important they would have put it in the damn Constitution.
If you are going to replace a polished Borg-Gates with a politically correct MS logo, all in line with your wonderful BI crap and attempting to shift the demographics to ad influenced "IT professionals" (removing Billy Borg to appeal to drones, how ironic), at least make a logo that does not look like the crap/. used to have when it first started.
One presumes their contractors don't actually send out any data themselves, they might or might not have a license from the copyright holder to do so, but they can never be sure that there is no content from other copyright holders in any given torrent. That or they just rely on the anonymity provided by the swarm.
Furthermore, I read the "which" clause as being an explanatory clause, not a restrictive clause. Thus, it holds no controlling meaning, and can be eliminated without changing the overall meaning.
Of course it becomes complex if you decide that the singular piece that explains which programs are being opposed without playing "guess what we mean by this term", that's why it's there, they couldn't pin it down by stabbing at random terms either, so they needed to explain in plain terms what kind of objectives everything the oppose has in common. The fact that they consider them all to be relabeling of OBE is incidental.
Besides, grammar is not nearly as strict as you make it out to be and even if it was, it would be of questionable use in analyzing what you admit to be an extremely unclear sentence. Your tools might be useful for composing clear sentences, but they are misplaced understand one that didn't employ the same set.
We are in agreement, that's precisely why I focused on the last part that shows that despite claims to the contrary they oppose teaching core skills necessary for critical thinking, unless it somehow doesn't mean exactly what is says. You want to take your argument to Obfuscant directly.
How in the world did you come up with the idea that I actually agree with that shit, I was just trying to cut to the core of the issue as those who do agree seem to be latching onto secondary parts.
You're cutting out crucial parts of the sentence and ignoring the flow of proposition and justification to make it seem like they object to a subset of programs that specifically aim to achieve a certain objective, when in fact they object to the entire set of programs because they feel that they all aim to achieve a certain objective.
No, the paragraph as it stands gives the impression that they oppose a certain subset due to having a random enumeration of a series of terms, skills and concepts to a cursory reader, hence people defend it on those grounds. I "tried to imply" that they oppose anything that will challenge student's beliefs, including the beliefs they inherited from their parents, though this "implication" is merely a consequence of cutting all the crap (in regards to its role in the paragraph) that they believe is threatening them in this manner.
I think "local climate change" might be more fitting. It would correctly observe that some areas have gotten warmer and some colder, then proceed to that local climate changes are isolated phenomena that can not possibly have global results.
Does it, or does it not state that programs that "have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority"? Before you accuse me of quoting out of context as well, the context is as follows, everything before this phrase merely lists various programs that are believed to have such purpose. If you want to argue that that is not the purpose of that phrase you will have to be specific, if you don't you will have to be specific on how challenging fixed beliefs is not essential to critical thinking.
They are not opposing programs "which have the purpose of undermining the student's fixed beliefs", neither are they opposing programs "which have the purpose of changing the student's fixed beliefs", no they oppose mere challenging, you can't have a critical thinking program that doesn't address your potential biases.
Let's try to make that even clearer and remove the specific terms, including the well understood "critical thinking" as the defenders of this particular gem consider them open to redefinition:
We oppose the teaching of [..] programs [..] have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
That is what the paragraph says when you cut away the jargon, so let's discuss the substance, not terms.
Gather a dozen Libertarians and try to get them to agree on anything of substance.
Gather a dozen academics and try to get them to agree on anything on the cutting edge.
Personally I believe (and admit it is just an irrational emotional belief) that the future does lie in that direction, we just need another couple of great thinkers to solve some of the gaps in the theory.
The axiomatic approach is where the problems come in the first place, it's not a theory. The insanity you observe comes from trying to derive a system for governing a highly complex system from a few simple rules.
That more liberty is better than less.
We'd have to agree what liberty means first. Trying to pin that down when more than one person is involved is not trivial (a single body problem is easy, the ability to do whatever you want).
I assume that when they say "challenging the student's fixed beliefs", they also mean something else entirely instead of insinuating that challenging beliefs is somehow fundamentally wrong?
It's a dux, it looks like a tax, it walks like a tax and it quacks like a tax. It was just not called a tax until a court looked at it and said: "This is quite clearly a tax under another name, so we will treat it as what it is, not what they pretend it is." Just like when they treat a limitation on speech as what it is and not what someone pretends it to be. This is a Good Thing and how the court should operate.
Slashdot Mirror
How in the world do you goldbugs manage to ignore the hundreds if not thousands of years of silver currency? And since when do you trust a bank to not lie to you if some of their gold gets stolen? It's not even money, just another commodity (and no, that is not the same at all), I'd rather have proper, diversified investments.
To be fair bitcoins are quite a bit more traceable than cash, you'd need a fair amount of resources to untangle all of the dummy accounts (if peope are smart enough to use dummy accounts), but at some point or another a good number of users will turn the anonymosly traceable bitcoins into less traceable cash (tracing by serial numbers is really hard). If you can get your hands on that information (by, say, running a bitcoin exchange or two and hacking a few more) and correlate to bitcoin tranaction logs you will get a fair amount of information. AInvolved, but not impossible for a government or large corporation.
To put it another way, they are giving away peanuts in bandwidth (particularly considering that hardly any of those connections will be saturated) in exchange for people giving permission and paying for a fiber connection to their house. 5/1 for 7 years in exchange for an explosion in infrastructure that could be switched to a paying connection by the user without additional connection fees? Sounds like they found a good deal both ways.
The part you don't seem to grasp is that substantial here is about functionality (e.g. you can upload your wedding videos instead of mailing DVDs), not quantity (e.g. only $ASSPULL_STATISTIC percent of the users upload wedding videos).
They shouldn't take it kindly at all, it's gross negligence on the part of their IT staff to not set up secure communications channels. It's not the fault of the airports, hotels or coffee shops. If you are connecting to essentially random open hotspots that might, or might not, be provided by whatever establishment and not encrypting your connections you are at high risk, Germany or elsewhere.
The flipside is that may have to move quickly when your landlord needs the house or falls over dead.
"Defense of marriage Act" and "Marriage Protection Act" implied otherwise.
Apparently including the flow of msauve's contact information. If the Founding Fathers thought privacy in the age of massive databases and real-time communication was important they would have put it in the damn Constitution.
If you are going to replace a polished Borg-Gates with a politically correct MS logo, all in line with your wonderful BI crap and attempting to shift the demographics to ad influenced "IT professionals" (removing Billy Borg to appeal to drones, how ironic), at least make a logo that does not look like the crap /. used to have when it first started.
One presumes their contractors don't actually send out any data themselves, they might or might not have a license from the copyright holder to do so, but they can never be sure that there is no content from other copyright holders in any given torrent. That or they just rely on the anonymity provided by the swarm.
Of course it becomes complex if you decide that the singular piece that explains which programs are being opposed without playing "guess what we mean by this term", that's why it's there, they couldn't pin it down by stabbing at random terms either, so they needed to explain in plain terms what kind of objectives everything the oppose has in common. The fact that they consider them all to be relabeling of OBE is incidental.
Besides, grammar is not nearly as strict as you make it out to be and even if it was, it would be of questionable use in analyzing what you admit to be an extremely unclear sentence. Your tools might be useful for composing clear sentences, but they are misplaced understand one that didn't employ the same set.
We are in agreement, that's precisely why I focused on the last part that shows that despite claims to the contrary they oppose teaching core skills necessary for critical thinking, unless it somehow doesn't mean exactly what is says. You want to take your argument to Obfuscant directly.
How in the world did you come up with the idea that I actually agree with that shit, I was just trying to cut to the core of the issue as those who do agree seem to be latching onto secondary parts.
No, the paragraph as it stands gives the impression that they oppose a certain subset due to having a random enumeration of a series of terms, skills and concepts to a cursory reader, hence people defend it on those grounds. I "tried to imply" that they oppose anything that will challenge student's beliefs, including the beliefs they inherited from their parents, though this "implication" is merely a consequence of cutting all the crap (in regards to its role in the paragraph) that they believe is threatening them in this manner.
I think "local climate change" might be more fitting. It would correctly observe that some areas have gotten warmer and some colder, then proceed to that local climate changes are isolated phenomena that can not possibly have global results.
I can't imagine a minister managing to cram all of the subject in with the vows, but I support them trying to make it happen anyway...
Does it, or does it not state that programs that "have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority"? Before you accuse me of quoting out of context as well, the context is as follows, everything before this phrase merely lists various programs that are believed to have such purpose. If you want to argue that that is not the purpose of that phrase you will have to be specific, if you don't you will have to be specific on how challenging fixed beliefs is not essential to critical thinking.
They are not opposing programs "which have the purpose of undermining the student's fixed beliefs", neither are they opposing programs "which have the purpose of changing the student's fixed beliefs", no they oppose mere challenging, you can't have a critical thinking program that doesn't address your potential biases.
That is what the paragraph says when you cut away the jargon, so let's discuss the substance, not terms.
Free trade as in, free to be captured and sold as a slave?
Gather a dozen academics and try to get them to agree on anything on the cutting edge.
The axiomatic approach is where the problems come in the first place, it's not a theory. The insanity you observe comes from trying to derive a system for governing a highly complex system from a few simple rules.
We'd have to agree what liberty means first. Trying to pin that down when more than one person is involved is not trivial (a single body problem is easy, the ability to do whatever you want).
I assume that when they say "challenging the student's fixed beliefs", they also mean something else entirely instead of insinuating that challenging beliefs is somehow fundamentally wrong?
And that makes this unconstitutional or something?
It's a dux, it looks like a tax, it walks like a tax and it quacks like a tax. It was just not called a tax until a court looked at it and said: "This is quite clearly a tax under another name, so we will treat it as what it is, not what they pretend it is." Just like when they treat a limitation on speech as what it is and not what someone pretends it to be. This is a Good Thing and how the court should operate.