That's not the problem in the argument presented there. It said, "Conservatives (and the Religious Right)." I am pretty sure that draws the distinction between the conservatives who are religious (albeit religious Christians) and the conservatives who are not. And social conservatism is pretty much married to Religious Right. I am gonna insist that most atheists are not liberals. This may be motivated by the bias of my own experience, but I would argue that most of them are pragmatists when it comes to social issues (choosing the affiliation which is most aligned with their material... and I said material -- not materialistic -- view).
I don't think you owe them perspective. I do think that if you start denigrating them simply for being Christian (rather than for cause), then they are correct in calling you on it.
Social programs are the cheapest and best way to make a long term positive effect on society.
How absurd! This has been proven wrong both in practice and in theory. It's been widely discredited. The only reason this nonsense persists is that the people who made their living on this meme haven't retired yet.
Being an atheist is not a form of belonging to any group. Being a Christian is. In fact, being an atheist is a form of abstaining from participating in a certain category of groups (those based on faith).
Why do you assume that atheists are liberals? The guy said conservatives. He didn't say religious right. I am an atheist and of the atheists I know, I think conservatives outnumber liberals by a factor of 5 to 1.
The "entry drug" is not pot, bear, tobacco or any other substance. It's the company of the people who want to do drugs. Illegality of pot is what makes pot heads into a community. When was the last time anyone took seriously a membership in a scotch-drinking club? Why? Because it's legal. As long as there is a law-induced community of drug users, that community will facilitate spread and use of other drugs.
You shouldn't operate machinery under effects of alcohol, either. But it's legal to buy it. You don't need a license or a doctor's note to buy alcohol. Oh, and tobacco is also legal to buy.
Misspelling aside, Levi was the company that made the most money on the Gold Rush. The fact that they keep making money on their name only demonstrates how old and stable the brand is.
Hear, Hear! It's responsible for at least 10%-20% of all the written C++ code. You generally have the option of either writing out a header of a for loop on 3 lines or doing 2 typedefs (still 3 lines in total).
Not really. Maybe in compilers which ignored the standard. But the best you can do is operator()() in anonymous structures. However the standard does not allow them.
Oh, common. It's not the shovel makers. The company which made the most money in the Gold Rush is still with us today. It was Levy's. They made the pants that the pants which were just right for the job (jeans) -- sturdy enough to sustain high wear and tear and yet comfortable.
Re:Is it even possible to roll back a bitcoin trad
on
Bitcoin Price Crashes
·
· Score: 1
Futures and other derivatives will not be traded until reliable bitcoin-denominated fixed income instruments emerge. Until then, any exchange would be (albeit tacitly) assuming a role of a FI issuer.
To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa’ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11.
At no point in time did anyone in the Bush administration insinuate that Iraq was involved in any role (direct or supporting) in the 9/11 attack. Iraq was involved with some of the Al Queda nodes. This is confirmed information. The report states that no connection existed between Iraq and Al Queda. That's blatantly false. You are using the anonymity of the Internet to spread lies about policy which you don't care to characterize accurately in order to smear an administration which you don't like viscerally. That's a statement purely about you -- not about Bush.
Well, since bitcoins get anonymity after they are transferred, they could simply transfer it out to an outside wallet or multiple wallets (smurfing) and then further transfer it out to another bc holding account. I have to admit quite a bit of ignorance on the whole MtGox workings. So far I am only mildly curious about BC. Not quite enough to commit any resources to it, but enough to start reading about it.
No, I mean that he HAS complied with WPA. And you have committed an actionable civil offense. Libel is not protected speech. Accusing someone of a crime they you know they didn't commit is bona fide libel. A necessary component of fraud is prior knowledge that the claims made during a transaction are false. Bush did not at any point lie. He may have been mistaken. That is not fraud. I am certain that you knew that already as is evidenced by your prior comments. Therefore, if Bush really wanted to (and I wish he would), his legal team would be 1 filing away from getting a libel judgement against you. Oh, and I am not a lawyer, but I do read.
Re:Is it even possible to roll back a bitcoin trad
on
Bitcoin Price Crashes
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The only thing I can think of is that they are rolling back transactions which haven't settled yet (settlement=delivery). Because once they bitcoins held in a MtGox account have been transferred out to your bitcoin wallet, they can't get it back. But while they are still held in MtGox account, the actual owner of the coins is MtGox (much like your brokerage is the actual owner of your monkey while you have money deposited with the brokerage).
How can they enforce a roll back? Once the bitcoin is transferred out to another bitcoin account, there is no charge back or getting that monkey back. One would assume that any compromised account would have its bitcoins immediately transferred out, right?
Obama's only argument is that he is the final fact-finder on the legal interpretation of the President's power. He doesn't even bother claiming legal compliance. His only argument is that his actions are acceptable by international standards. He went so far as to ignore the legal advice of WH's internal lawyers. He's pretty much stated (although he didn't use this language) that he is above the law.
Slashdot Mirror
You live in a delusion where most atheists are commies. That's not the case.
That's not the problem in the argument presented there. It said, "Conservatives (and the Religious Right)." I am pretty sure that draws the distinction between the conservatives who are religious (albeit religious Christians) and the conservatives who are not. And social conservatism is pretty much married to Religious Right. I am gonna insist that most atheists are not liberals. This may be motivated by the bias of my own experience, but I would argue that most of them are pragmatists when it comes to social issues (choosing the affiliation which is most aligned with their material... and I said material -- not materialistic -- view).
I don't think you owe them perspective. I do think that if you start denigrating them simply for being Christian (rather than for cause), then they are correct in calling you on it.
Social programs are the cheapest and best way to make a long term positive effect on society.
How absurd! This has been proven wrong both in practice and in theory. It's been widely discredited. The only reason this nonsense persists is that the people who made their living on this meme haven't retired yet.
Being an atheist is not a form of belonging to any group. Being a Christian is. In fact, being an atheist is a form of abstaining from participating in a certain category of groups (those based on faith).
Why do you assume that atheists are liberals? The guy said conservatives. He didn't say religious right. I am an atheist and of the atheists I know, I think conservatives outnumber liberals by a factor of 5 to 1.
The "entry drug" is not pot, bear, tobacco or any other substance. It's the company of the people who want to do drugs. Illegality of pot is what makes pot heads into a community. When was the last time anyone took seriously a membership in a scotch-drinking club? Why? Because it's legal. As long as there is a law-induced community of drug users, that community will facilitate spread and use of other drugs.
It's safer than other legal recreational drugs (tobacco and alcohol). That's enough of a reason to make it legal.
You shouldn't operate machinery under effects of alcohol, either. But it's legal to buy it. You don't need a license or a doctor's note to buy alcohol. Oh, and tobacco is also legal to buy.
What does that have to do with legalizing pot?
I don't think those who are abused (or who are on the receiving end of slurs) owe any amount of perspective to those who are doing the abusing.
Muslim bashing is not considered PC. Christian bashing is. Full disclosure: I am an atheist.
Unless, of course, 50% of the gamers (the women) flock to a medium which they don't like.
Misspelling aside, Levi was the company that made the most money on the Gold Rush. The fact that they keep making money on their name only demonstrates how old and stable the brand is.
Hear, Hear! It's responsible for at least 10%-20% of all the written C++ code. You generally have the option of either writing out a header of a for loop on 3 lines or doing 2 typedefs (still 3 lines in total).
No, no. This is C++. Parsing!
Not really. Maybe in compilers which ignored the standard. But the best you can do is operator()() in anonymous structures. However the standard does not allow them.
Oh, common. It's not the shovel makers. The company which made the most money in the Gold Rush is still with us today. It was Levy's. They made the pants that the pants which were just right for the job (jeans) -- sturdy enough to sustain high wear and tear and yet comfortable.
Futures and other derivatives will not be traded until reliable bitcoin-denominated fixed income instruments emerge. Until then, any exchange would be (albeit tacitly) assuming a role of a FI issuer.
To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa’ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11.
At no point in time did anyone in the Bush administration insinuate that Iraq was involved in any role (direct or supporting) in the 9/11 attack. Iraq was involved with some of the Al Queda nodes. This is confirmed information. The report states that no connection existed between Iraq and Al Queda. That's blatantly false. You are using the anonymity of the Internet to spread lies about policy which you don't care to characterize accurately in order to smear an administration which you don't like viscerally. That's a statement purely about you -- not about Bush.
Well, since bitcoins get anonymity after they are transferred, they could simply transfer it out to an outside wallet or multiple wallets (smurfing) and then further transfer it out to another bc holding account. I have to admit quite a bit of ignorance on the whole MtGox workings. So far I am only mildly curious about BC. Not quite enough to commit any resources to it, but enough to start reading about it.
No, I mean that he HAS complied with WPA. And you have committed an actionable civil offense. Libel is not protected speech. Accusing someone of a crime they you know they didn't commit is bona fide libel. A necessary component of fraud is prior knowledge that the claims made during a transaction are false. Bush did not at any point lie. He may have been mistaken. That is not fraud. I am certain that you knew that already as is evidenced by your prior comments. Therefore, if Bush really wanted to (and I wish he would), his legal team would be 1 filing away from getting a libel judgement against you. Oh, and I am not a lawyer, but I do read.
The only thing I can think of is that they are rolling back transactions which haven't settled yet (settlement=delivery). Because once they bitcoins held in a MtGox account have been transferred out to your bitcoin wallet, they can't get it back. But while they are still held in MtGox account, the actual owner of the coins is MtGox (much like your brokerage is the actual owner of your monkey while you have money deposited with the brokerage).
How can they enforce a roll back? Once the bitcoin is transferred out to another bitcoin account, there is no charge back or getting that monkey back. One would assume that any compromised account would have its bitcoins immediately transferred out, right?
Obama's only argument is that he is the final fact-finder on the legal interpretation of the President's power. He doesn't even bother claiming legal compliance. His only argument is that his actions are acceptable by international standards. He went so far as to ignore the legal advice of WH's internal lawyers. He's pretty much stated (although he didn't use this language) that he is above the law.