Churches aren't businesses. They're not there to make a profit. You rather missed the point: If you are a business, that is, your job is to make a profit, you make certain your customers can get in and do business with you.
(By the way, I have been in churches that completely accept homosexuality.)
Short answer: yes. I am in favor of removing all income and property taxes, and having the only taxes being sales tax, with more expensive purchases being taxed at a higher rate. Sales taxes, I find, are entirely voluntary. Food and other essentials would, of course, not be taxed. For this system to work, however, the government would have to be scaled back tremendously. Again, something I'm in favor of.
It all depends on how you define "just." If just means "fair market value," then the Supreme Court's ruling would make sense. If just means fair to the individual, then it does not.
The Founding Fathers really left some words that seemed specific at the time they were written, but seem rather vague now. "Just" is one of them. I suppose the legal definition of "just" is not the same as my personal definition, then. *Sigh* This country oftentimes doesn't seem quite right for a libertarian such as myself...
I own a house. It's not all that nice of a house; for simplicity's sake, let's say it's been appraised at $100,000. However, it's been in the family for generations. My grandparents grew up in the house, and I love it dearly. But Uncle Sam doesn't like me having this house, because it's bringing down property values because it's so old, and it's in the middle of a nice, new development. I don't want to sell under any circumstances. Uncle Sam offers me $125,000, which would be more than a fair value if I were looking to sell, but I'm not. So Uncle Sam takes me to court, and the court rules that all ol' Uncle Sam has to give me is $100,000, and they can force me out of my house. I ask you, is that fair? More importantly, is that just? To me, the answer is obvious: No, that is not fair. No, that is not just. The government should not be given the right to buy property willy-nilly, without the consent of the owner. If I don't want to sell to Joe Blow from across town, why should I have to sell to the government? Why should the government take away my right to own my house? What business does the government have doing that?
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I hold that compensation that is just is and should be decided by the owner of the property, not the government. Just as if I want to sell my house to someone else, I have the final say on if their offer is acceptable to me. It should be no different when the government is the buyer.
No state has the right to take my property. No state. No branch of government, in fact. Not the federal government, not the state government, not the county government, not the municipal government. My property is mine, and I will sell it to the government if I wish. If I don't, tough beans, government, deal with it.
I consider trumpeting states' rights on this issue akin to supporting states' rights for limitations on freedom of speech. It's a basic human right. The kind of thing the Constitution was designed to protect. And it's absolutely heinous that the government would try to take that right away from me.
"Who" is correct. Re-word it: "It's just a case of he being your English teacher." The part after "of" is a separate phrase, so the word immediately following "of" (which happens to be "who") is not necessarily an object of "of," but rather the whole phrase is.
Oy. Grandparent, you just worded your sentence awkwardly.;)
But one would hope that the geek would have briefed the non-geek Firefox user on how to avoid something like phishing. I have my grandfather, father, and stepmother (among others) using Firefox, but I also made sure that they're not stupid enough to fall for a phishing scam. I think that 99% of/.ers know that using good software isn't enough -- you have to be able to recognize scams and dangerous situations on the Internet to be secure at all. Thus, Firefox is but one prong in my "improve Granny's security" offensive.
Full PNG and CSS2 support, hopefully. Gee whiz, doesn't Microsoft just have the most original ideas for IE? Wherever would we be without their browser innovation?
Ironically, IE used to be exactly like Firefox: Up against a monster behemoth (Netscape) which was starting to stagnate, and fall in quality a bit. I find it odd that they didn't learn from that experience, and instead decided to rest on their laurels after stomping Netscape. They really should have seen Firefox (or something similar) coming, especially as IE hasn't really had any new development since 5.0 or so, save periodic security patches and such.
But anyway, competition is good! I hope IE does continue to try to put features in IE. Maybe Firefox can force Microsoft into keeping it up-to-date.
Power brakes are designed to stop the car from its top speed with the engine off. Enough vacuum is left to perform that maneuver just fine. If, by chance, you do lose brakes, you can still stop it without power assist, and you also have the handbrake to think about. And if you lose power steering...big whoop, so you have to turn the wheel a bit harder.
Shifting into neutral does start slowing the car down. Problem is, some newer electronic automatic transmissions won't accept your shift into neutral at that high of a tach. This is especially true of those automatic manual thingies where you can shift up or down without a clutch and whatnot.
But you really need to learn more about your car if you're going to drive one. It's kind of scary to know that there are people out there who think that if you turn off the engine, suddenly you won't be able to brake or steer. That's just not true. In fact, I suggest trying it in an abandoned parking lot sometime. Get moving a bit, then cut your power (NOT all the way to Lock, then your steering wheel does lock). Then try to steer, brake, etc. It'll all still work.
I saw quicksearches mentioned. (Type "google ") Those are really handy.
But what's wrong with the little search box? The keyboard shortcut to move focus to the search field is ^K, if that helps you. (Location bar is ^L.) But barring you getting used to the search field, Quicksearching is your best bet. I have one set for Wikipedia, and I use it all the time. Very nifty feature. I always try typing in "wiki " in IE when I'm at school before realizing that IE ain't Firefox.
Contingency plan for if a major disaster happens on Earth. We need to be able to set up self-sufficient colonies somewhere other than Earth. "Don't put all your eggs in one basket," and if we're smart, don't put all your humans on one planet. All it would take is one nuclear war and a fair portion of Earth could become uninhabitable.
The amazing thing is, my great-grandfather (Wilson Tucker) beat such notable people as Herbert, Roddenberry, etc...and I haven't met a single person outside of my family who's even heard of the poor guy. Of course, he wrote in the fifties and sixties, but still...
Why is it that they are so loathe to adopt standards? Is their code that flaky, or is it truly their monopolistic tendencies?
Nah, it's not that. They're just lazy, and it's not like CSS2 makes a good selling point for Joe Blow. They want to put in the flashy things like tabbed browsing to compete (NOT a bad thing, I remind you all), but ignore core components that Average IE User doesn't really care about, e.g. CSS2. Why spend time on boring old CSS when you can work on tabbed browsing? But really, I want to know if Microsoft is going to make IE as extensible as the other browsers out there, especially Firefox. I doubt it, but one would think that a skinnable and extension-ready IE would be a major selling point.
They are Latin American or South American, if you wish. Not plain American. That word is usually used, as I said, for the United States of America.
American
adj.
1. Of or relating to the United States of America or its people, language, or culture.
2. Of or relating to North or South America, the West Indies, or the Western Hemisphere.
3. Of or relating to any of the Native American peoples.
4. Indigenous to North or South America. Used of plants and animals.
Incidentally, why did you mention Bush?
I find it ridiculous that people from, say, Brazil, try to call themselves Americans. American = person from the United States of America; Brazilian = person from the Federative Republic of Brazil. That makes absolute sense. I'm not a United States of American, and a Chinese guy is not a People's Republic of Chinese. If a person in Central or South America wants a designation that fits, then Latin American works very well, or [country of origin]ian, such as "Colombian," and is entirely clear. Muddling up language with unclear designations isn't a very good idea...
I think the parent referred specifically to certain morals that are being forced upon us, like the prohibition of gay marriage in some states, and some people's wanting to ban games like GTA.
Besides which, "the right things" are very subjective. We can all pretty much agree that respecting other people and not stealing are Good Things, but what of the guy who works his way from the gutter, makes millions, and chooses to enjoy it rather than giving it to charity? Is he evil because he's keeping what he earned rather than sharing it with others? Is the file-sharer evil because he's stealing money from music artists? People have lots of different views on what is right or not. And it gets really sticky when deciding what to codify into law or not. That is how I interpreted the parent post.
What effect a contribution may have is irrelevant. Game designers are after one thing: money. Sometimes fame, but usually money. If 90% of people love a game because it's a good game and 10% of people think it's atrocious because, say, the majority of the things you do involve killing Haitians...oh well. As a sibling post said, no one is forcing it on you. You are free to not buy a game you don't like. You are free to not look at art that offends you. And you are free to not watch the antics of sports stars. It's all about your personal choice. That's why America's such a great country (usually).
Slashdot Mirror
Churches aren't businesses. They're not there to make a profit. You rather missed the point: If you are a business, that is, your job is to make a profit, you make certain your customers can get in and do business with you.
(By the way, I have been in churches that completely accept homosexuality.)
Short answer: yes. I am in favor of removing all income and property taxes, and having the only taxes being sales tax, with more expensive purchases being taxed at a higher rate. Sales taxes, I find, are entirely voluntary. Food and other essentials would, of course, not be taxed. For this system to work, however, the government would have to be scaled back tremendously. Again, something I'm in favor of.
It all depends on how you define "just." If just means "fair market value," then the Supreme Court's ruling would make sense. If just means fair to the individual, then it does not.
The Founding Fathers really left some words that seemed specific at the time they were written, but seem rather vague now. "Just" is one of them. I suppose the legal definition of "just" is not the same as my personal definition, then. *Sigh* This country oftentimes doesn't seem quite right for a libertarian such as myself...
Ah wait, you're short six. Nine times six, remember?
Let me give you an example.
I own a house. It's not all that nice of a house; for simplicity's sake, let's say it's been appraised at $100,000. However, it's been in the family for generations. My grandparents grew up in the house, and I love it dearly. But Uncle Sam doesn't like me having this house, because it's bringing down property values because it's so old, and it's in the middle of a nice, new development. I don't want to sell under any circumstances. Uncle Sam offers me $125,000, which would be more than a fair value if I were looking to sell, but I'm not. So Uncle Sam takes me to court, and the court rules that all ol' Uncle Sam has to give me is $100,000, and they can force me out of my house. I ask you, is that fair? More importantly, is that just? To me, the answer is obvious: No, that is not fair. No, that is not just. The government should not be given the right to buy property willy-nilly, without the consent of the owner. If I don't want to sell to Joe Blow from across town, why should I have to sell to the government? Why should the government take away my right to own my house? What business does the government have doing that?
No state has the right to take my property. No state. No branch of government, in fact. Not the federal government, not the state government, not the county government, not the municipal government. My property is mine, and I will sell it to the government if I wish. If I don't, tough beans, government, deal with it.
I consider trumpeting states' rights on this issue akin to supporting states' rights for limitations on freedom of speech. It's a basic human right. The kind of thing the Constitution was designed to protect. And it's absolutely heinous that the government would try to take that right away from me.
"Who" is correct. Re-word it: "It's just a case of he being your English teacher." The part after "of" is a separate phrase, so the word immediately following "of" (which happens to be "who") is not necessarily an object of "of," but rather the whole phrase is. Oy. Grandparent, you just worded your sentence awkwardly. ;)
::makes "joke went over your head" motion::
Try watching Spaceballs, then get back to us.
That's not a moon! That's a...oh, nevermind.
But one would hope that the geek would have briefed the non-geek Firefox user on how to avoid something like phishing. I have my grandfather, father, and stepmother (among others) using Firefox, but I also made sure that they're not stupid enough to fall for a phishing scam. I think that 99% of /.ers know that using good software isn't enough -- you have to be able to recognize scams and dangerous situations on the Internet to be secure at all. Thus, Firefox is but one prong in my "improve Granny's security" offensive.
See, the Firefox dev team fixes bugs quickly! Faster than the human eye can track, even!
Full PNG and CSS2 support, hopefully. Gee whiz, doesn't Microsoft just have the most original ideas for IE? Wherever would we be without their browser innovation?
Ironically, IE used to be exactly like Firefox: Up against a monster behemoth (Netscape) which was starting to stagnate, and fall in quality a bit. I find it odd that they didn't learn from that experience, and instead decided to rest on their laurels after stomping Netscape. They really should have seen Firefox (or something similar) coming, especially as IE hasn't really had any new development since 5.0 or so, save periodic security patches and such.
But anyway, competition is good! I hope IE does continue to try to put features in IE. Maybe Firefox can force Microsoft into keeping it up-to-date.
Power brakes are designed to stop the car from its top speed with the engine off. Enough vacuum is left to perform that maneuver just fine. If, by chance, you do lose brakes, you can still stop it without power assist, and you also have the handbrake to think about. And if you lose power steering...big whoop, so you have to turn the wheel a bit harder.
Shifting into neutral does start slowing the car down. Problem is, some newer electronic automatic transmissions won't accept your shift into neutral at that high of a tach. This is especially true of those automatic manual thingies where you can shift up or down without a clutch and whatnot.
But you really need to learn more about your car if you're going to drive one. It's kind of scary to know that there are people out there who think that if you turn off the engine, suddenly you won't be able to brake or steer. That's just not true. In fact, I suggest trying it in an abandoned parking lot sometime. Get moving a bit, then cut your power (NOT all the way to Lock, then your steering wheel does lock). Then try to steer, brake, etc. It'll all still work.
I saw quicksearches mentioned. (Type "google ") Those are really handy.
But what's wrong with the little search box? The keyboard shortcut to move focus to the search field is ^K, if that helps you. (Location bar is ^L.) But barring you getting used to the search field, Quicksearching is your best bet. I have one set for Wikipedia, and I use it all the time. Very nifty feature. I always try typing in "wiki " in IE when I'm at school before realizing that IE ain't Firefox.
Banned? Illegal? Christ! Once again, thank you James Madison for the Bill of Rights...
Tried Adblock?
Contingency plan for if a major disaster happens on Earth. We need to be able to set up self-sufficient colonies somewhere other than Earth. "Don't put all your eggs in one basket," and if we're smart, don't put all your humans on one planet. All it would take is one nuclear war and a fair portion of Earth could become uninhabitable.
The amazing thing is, my great-grandfather (Wilson Tucker) beat such notable people as Herbert, Roddenberry, etc...and I haven't met a single person outside of my family who's even heard of the poor guy. Of course, he wrote in the fifties and sixties, but still...
Why is it that they are so loathe to adopt standards? Is their code that flaky, or is it truly their monopolistic tendencies?
Nah, it's not that. They're just lazy, and it's not like CSS2 makes a good selling point for Joe Blow. They want to put in the flashy things like tabbed browsing to compete (NOT a bad thing, I remind you all), but ignore core components that Average IE User doesn't really care about, e.g. CSS2. Why spend time on boring old CSS when you can work on tabbed browsing? But really, I want to know if Microsoft is going to make IE as extensible as the other browsers out there, especially Firefox. I doubt it, but one would think that a skinnable and extension-ready IE would be a major selling point.
They are Latin American or South American, if you wish. Not plain American. That word is usually used, as I said, for the United States of America. American adj. 1. Of or relating to the United States of America or its people, language, or culture. 2. Of or relating to North or South America, the West Indies, or the Western Hemisphere. 3. Of or relating to any of the Native American peoples. 4. Indigenous to North or South America. Used of plants and animals. Incidentally, why did you mention Bush?
I find it ridiculous that people from, say, Brazil, try to call themselves Americans. American = person from the United States of America; Brazilian = person from the Federative Republic of Brazil. That makes absolute sense. I'm not a United States of American, and a Chinese guy is not a People's Republic of Chinese. If a person in Central or South America wants a designation that fits, then Latin American works very well, or [country of origin]ian, such as "Colombian," and is entirely clear. Muddling up language with unclear designations isn't a very good idea...
I think the parent referred specifically to certain morals that are being forced upon us, like the prohibition of gay marriage in some states, and some people's wanting to ban games like GTA. Besides which, "the right things" are very subjective. We can all pretty much agree that respecting other people and not stealing are Good Things, but what of the guy who works his way from the gutter, makes millions, and chooses to enjoy it rather than giving it to charity? Is he evil because he's keeping what he earned rather than sharing it with others? Is the file-sharer evil because he's stealing money from music artists? People have lots of different views on what is right or not. And it gets really sticky when deciding what to codify into law or not. That is how I interpreted the parent post.
What effect a contribution may have is irrelevant. Game designers are after one thing: money. Sometimes fame, but usually money. If 90% of people love a game because it's a good game and 10% of people think it's atrocious because, say, the majority of the things you do involve killing Haitians...oh well. As a sibling post said, no one is forcing it on you. You are free to not buy a game you don't like. You are free to not look at art that offends you. And you are free to not watch the antics of sports stars. It's all about your personal choice. That's why America's such a great country (usually).