I don't know if it matters but I do think there is one glaring difference between what this guy is doing and what all of the favorite targets of Slashdotters are doing. That is, the believers of real religious faiths actually do believe in what they're doing, even the apparel they wear as part of their worship. Does anybody truly believe this guy believes in a spaghetti god or any supernatural reason to wear a spaghetti strainer on his head?
Please list these "real religious faiths". As far as I am aware, there is no religious faith that has been proven real. And since all religious faiths (redundant phrasing) are not real, then who gets to be the arbiter of which unproven make-believe is acceptable and which make-believe is not?
Except, some 90% of the population is religious and as a result, they won't see the hypocrisy and absurdity. All they will see is that some "godless secularist is mocking our religion". Remember, religious people see themselves as a minority constantly picked on by those 10% of non-believers out there.
Of course, you have to conduct a psychiatric evaluation. If you believe in a different set of mythology then the absurd mythologies that are already generally accepted, then you surely must be fucking nuts. Everyone else is totally insane, of course, with their zombie jesuses and blowing up cafes for allah and dancing nude around a fire with your coven.
Yeah, my kid had an easily treatable medical condition, but because of my narrow-mindedness and ignorance and belief in magical fairies, I demanded that we only pray for him, instead. Sure, he just got progressively sick over a period of a month while we prayed by his bedside twenty-four hours a day, until he eventually died for lack of $20 in medicine, but I'm his parent and it's my right to decide what's best for him.
You've got that backwards. Marriage is a contract, just like any other incorporation. Signed and stamped by the government in recognition and all, just like a business partnership would be. Whether you then choose to make it a religious affair after that is your doing. That is why all of this "only a man and a woman durpa durpa durp!" bullshit is so fucking retarded. By that logic, only a man and a women should be able to form a business corporation. If someone wants to make it a religious affair, then they are free to go conduct that portion of the marriage at a church of their choice under the conditions of their choice.
We've amended the constitution, where necessary. You know, for things like eradicating slavery and allowing women to vote. I don't really see where confusion is over the constitution. People always talk about how it is the job of the SCOTUS to "interpret the constitution", but last time I read the document, it began with "WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT". *Self-evident*...
The document seems pretty clear on things like free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to due process, and the right to be protected against unlawful search and seizure. The only reason to "go back and clarify" these things if if people actually mean "re-write to fit my political viewpoint which contradicts what the constitution says" instead of "clarify".
Yes, the constitution was written by imperfect men, but it's disingenuous for us to say things like "they were just farmers and slave-owners and have no relevance to today's society". The document aims to protect us against many things that went wrong in other societies. Things that *WE* seem to often fail to comprehend, today. Things that may seem irrelevant to us *because* of the protections the document has laid out for so long that we might be all too willing to fuck up, under the premise that "life is really different today".
I don't see a single thing in the constitution which does not belong there, for all of time and we're always free to add amendments if we agree that they are absolutely vital and valuable.
You realize that is counter to the way our entire union was formed, right? We weren't formed with the Roman "all power concentrated int he capital city" model, for a reason. By this logic, why have states? Why not just have federal everything?
Exactly. The United States of America was completely built around the concept of having power concentrated from one primary location, out to the spokes of the rest of the empire. Oh wait, it wasn't.
Also, what are you going to do about the states that don't have sales tax?
Also, you're really going to hold the europe/the eurpean union up as an example of economic sanity?
Perhaps the original poster should have said current taxation is simply price-gouging.
If our extraordinary amount of taxes were spent wisely and responsibly, we would all probably be happy to contribute and we'd probably live in a world much closer to utopia. However, nobody likes having excessive money taken from them so that it can be put into a corrupt and thieving machine of obscurity which barely functions.
Don't worry. There is a clearly movement growing to "redo the constitution". Look at the recent Time article and that CNN douchebag Fareed Zakaria's comments about how it's "time to update the constitution". After all, Iceland is writing a new constitution for the second time in the past sixty years or so using the comments of citizens via Facebook and Twitter and Youtube. Why shouldn't we? After all, our founding fathers had no idea when they wrote the constitution that freedom of speech would hurt so many people with thin skin, right? They were just a bunch irrelevant dumbasses from olden times, right? (I also heard Clinton speaking somewhere recently where he went on and on about the same idea).
I'm baffled by morons, like this. The obligation is that the citizen of a state pay their taxes owed to that state. If you choose not to have your employer collect your income tax, then you are obligated to pay that tax at the end of the year. If you made purchases that should have been subject to sales tax, then you are obligated to pay that tax at the end of the year, when you settle up.
I fail to see where it's the responsibility of any business (especially outside of the state) to do that work. And if they're supposed to be obligated to collect sales tax for every state, then why shouldn't they be responsible to do the same for every other country on the planet, too?
So many people eager to jump on the bandwagon of disingenuous brick and mortar chains who can't compete and just want to hobble the competition in any way they possibly can, with no regard for the principal.
Plus, aren't we a little tired of the incessant taxation? My income is taxed when it comes in. It's taxed when it goes out. And then the guy who receives it has to pay income tax on the same money that I just payed income and sales tax on. It never fucking ends.
How much do you want to bet the same guy advocating this doesn't pay a use tax on items he bought out of state while on vacation, once he crosses the border back into his own state?
That's all you can get? While you can get the limited HBO and SHOtime content for $9/mo on top of the $100 you probably pay for cable itself (and really, I can't imagine it's only $9/mo since it's usually $15 just for HBO), for only $8, I can get access to like 20,000 to 30,000 movies and documentaries and television shows any time of the day I want to watch them and on any device. Even if I'm not home.
First, I'd pay way more than $8/mo for what I'm getting on streaming right now. Second, the DVD part of the service obviously has much more overhead involved and therefore would likely cost more. Especially if they want to try and eventually price people out of choosing that service and going with just streaming.
My only complaints about streaming is the selection and the fact that so much stuff is only there shortly. I find about 20% of my queue just vanishing about every month. Worse, even when you do watch some stuff, parts are missing. I was going to watch Quantum Leap, but when I started scrolling through the episodes, I found that 20% of them were unavailable. Why in the hell would you make an entire TV show series from 20 years ago be available, but then remove like a fifth of it? Especially if you're going to remove things like the first episode and the last episode?
So women are delicate precious flowers that I have to watch my language around, for fear of offending their gentle sensibilities? What fucking decade are you living in, sir?
Agreed. The problem is fear derived from ignorance. All morality has to do with it is that it's utilized as a cheap way to justify that fear, instead of exploring the truth.
If it was a chunk of the Berlin Wall, it'd be fucking worthless. The Berlin Wall was an extremely large thing and was broken into many pieces that are sold all over the world. Unless it's a very large piece of the wall (like, at least the size of a person) and it is covered with some of the known graffiti that was popular on the wall, then a chunk of the Berlin Wall is worth about as much as a chunk of any other rock laying around. The only market for pieces of the Berlin Wall today are in selling to sucker tourists, the same way those stupid "collector plates" you see sold on television have no value, but will get a quick first sale to some idiot decorating their house in Andy Griffith commemorative collector dinner plates.
Even if it did go to the moon, I don't see why anyone would care. Placing a value on objects simply because of who owned them or where they were at a point in history is just as absurd as placing a value on someone's "autograph". Unless a signature is attached to a fat check directly cashable to me, then I don't see what the hell I care about some ink on a piece of paper.
I met Buzz Aldrin when I was a kid. That was awesome. It wouldn't have been made more awesome by getting an autograph from him or by planting a flag on him and then selling strips of that flag on eBay.
Yeah, but isn't the point to improve the google customer/browsing/searching experience? Otherwise it'd be a wild west of search engines with the caveat that you should manipulate the results however you want on your end, for a better result set. Things like the ability to block domains per-user are nice for one-off circumstances, but things like ehow/yahoo.answers/chacha and similar are of no use to anyone and certainly don't belong in the top results anymore than a malware site does.
Actually, it looks like they've raised the limit to 500 domains. That's a lot more reasonable. There's more than 50 that I need to block for a better experience, but I probably couldn't come up with near 500 regular offenders.
Problem is, it only allows you to blacklist 50 domains (or did, last time I used the feature).
I suppose suggesting google should block them is a bit harsh, but it'd be nice if they had a way to more appropriately rank them. The quality and accuracy and meaningfulness of the content deserves placement a few pages down; the only reason they have the top three or five results most of the time, is due to a more broad manipulation unrelated to the actual individual content. If the content was valuable (like wikipedia results), I'd have no problem with it rising to the top - even with a nudge by google as a judgement call.
Slashdot Mirror
Redbox offers unlimited multi-device streaming?
I don't know if it matters but I do think there is one glaring difference between what this guy is doing and what all of the favorite targets of Slashdotters are doing. That is, the believers of real religious faiths actually do believe in what they're doing, even the apparel they wear as part of their worship. Does anybody truly believe this guy believes in a spaghetti god or any supernatural reason to wear a spaghetti strainer on his head?
Please list these "real religious faiths". As far as I am aware, there is no religious faith that has been proven real. And since all religious faiths (redundant phrasing) are not real, then who gets to be the arbiter of which unproven make-believe is acceptable and which make-believe is not?
Except, some 90% of the population is religious and as a result, they won't see the hypocrisy and absurdity. All they will see is that some "godless secularist is mocking our religion". Remember, religious people see themselves as a minority constantly picked on by those 10% of non-believers out there.
Of course, you have to conduct a psychiatric evaluation. If you believe in a different set of mythology then the absurd mythologies that are already generally accepted, then you surely must be fucking nuts. Everyone else is totally insane, of course, with their zombie jesuses and blowing up cafes for allah and dancing nude around a fire with your coven.
Yeah, my kid had an easily treatable medical condition, but because of my narrow-mindedness and ignorance and belief in magical fairies, I demanded that we only pray for him, instead. Sure, he just got progressively sick over a period of a month while we prayed by his bedside twenty-four hours a day, until he eventually died for lack of $20 in medicine, but I'm his parent and it's my right to decide what's best for him.
By "jews", you mean "almost all of the American population"? And, presumably, other countries, too?
You've got that backwards. Marriage is a contract, just like any other incorporation. Signed and stamped by the government in recognition and all, just like a business partnership would be. Whether you then choose to make it a religious affair after that is your doing. That is why all of this "only a man and a woman durpa durpa durp!" bullshit is so fucking retarded. By that logic, only a man and a women should be able to form a business corporation. If someone wants to make it a religious affair, then they are free to go conduct that portion of the marriage at a church of their choice under the conditions of their choice.
We've amended the constitution, where necessary. You know, for things like eradicating slavery and allowing women to vote. I don't really see where confusion is over the constitution. People always talk about how it is the job of the SCOTUS to "interpret the constitution", but last time I read the document, it began with "WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT". *Self-evident*...
The document seems pretty clear on things like free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to due process, and the right to be protected against unlawful search and seizure. The only reason to "go back and clarify" these things if if people actually mean "re-write to fit my political viewpoint which contradicts what the constitution says" instead of "clarify".
Yes, the constitution was written by imperfect men, but it's disingenuous for us to say things like "they were just farmers and slave-owners and have no relevance to today's society". The document aims to protect us against many things that went wrong in other societies. Things that *WE* seem to often fail to comprehend, today. Things that may seem irrelevant to us *because* of the protections the document has laid out for so long that we might be all too willing to fuck up, under the premise that "life is really different today".
I don't see a single thing in the constitution which does not belong there, for all of time and we're always free to add amendments if we agree that they are absolutely vital and valuable.
You realize that is counter to the way our entire union was formed, right? We weren't formed with the Roman "all power concentrated int he capital city" model, for a reason. By this logic, why have states? Why not just have federal everything?
Exactly. The United States of America was completely built around the concept of having power concentrated from one primary location, out to the spokes of the rest of the empire. Oh wait, it wasn't.
Also, what are you going to do about the states that don't have sales tax?
Also, you're really going to hold the europe/the eurpean union up as an example of economic sanity?
Correct, that is how it is supposed to be.
Perhaps the original poster should have said current taxation is simply price-gouging.
If our extraordinary amount of taxes were spent wisely and responsibly, we would all probably be happy to contribute and we'd probably live in a world much closer to utopia. However, nobody likes having excessive money taken from them so that it can be put into a corrupt and thieving machine of obscurity which barely functions.
Don't worry. There is a clearly movement growing to "redo the constitution". Look at the recent Time article and that CNN douchebag Fareed Zakaria's comments about how it's "time to update the constitution". After all, Iceland is writing a new constitution for the second time in the past sixty years or so using the comments of citizens via Facebook and Twitter and Youtube. Why shouldn't we? After all, our founding fathers had no idea when they wrote the constitution that freedom of speech would hurt so many people with thin skin, right? They were just a bunch irrelevant dumbasses from olden times, right? (I also heard Clinton speaking somewhere recently where he went on and on about the same idea).
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/20/is-it-time-to-update-the-u-s-constitution-2/
I'm baffled by morons, like this. The obligation is that the citizen of a state pay their taxes owed to that state. If you choose not to have your employer collect your income tax, then you are obligated to pay that tax at the end of the year. If you made purchases that should have been subject to sales tax, then you are obligated to pay that tax at the end of the year, when you settle up.
I fail to see where it's the responsibility of any business (especially outside of the state) to do that work. And if they're supposed to be obligated to collect sales tax for every state, then why shouldn't they be responsible to do the same for every other country on the planet, too?
So many people eager to jump on the bandwagon of disingenuous brick and mortar chains who can't compete and just want to hobble the competition in any way they possibly can, with no regard for the principal.
Plus, aren't we a little tired of the incessant taxation? My income is taxed when it comes in. It's taxed when it goes out. And then the guy who receives it has to pay income tax on the same money that I just payed income and sales tax on. It never fucking ends.
How much do you want to bet the same guy advocating this doesn't pay a use tax on items he bought out of state while on vacation, once he crosses the border back into his own state?
That's all you can get? While you can get the limited HBO and SHOtime content for $9/mo on top of the $100 you probably pay for cable itself (and really, I can't imagine it's only $9/mo since it's usually $15 just for HBO), for only $8, I can get access to like 20,000 to 30,000 movies and documentaries and television shows any time of the day I want to watch them and on any device. Even if I'm not home.
First, I'd pay way more than $8/mo for what I'm getting on streaming right now. Second, the DVD part of the service obviously has much more overhead involved and therefore would likely cost more. Especially if they want to try and eventually price people out of choosing that service and going with just streaming.
My only complaints about streaming is the selection and the fact that so much stuff is only there shortly. I find about 20% of my queue just vanishing about every month. Worse, even when you do watch some stuff, parts are missing. I was going to watch Quantum Leap, but when I started scrolling through the episodes, I found that 20% of them were unavailable. Why in the hell would you make an entire TV show series from 20 years ago be available, but then remove like a fifth of it? Especially if you're going to remove things like the first episode and the last episode?
So women are delicate precious flowers that I have to watch my language around, for fear of offending their gentle sensibilities? What fucking decade are you living in, sir?
Agreed. The problem is fear derived from ignorance. All morality has to do with it is that it's utilized as a cheap way to justify that fear, instead of exploring the truth.
So to have a connection to a stunning event, I need to own a piece of material that was present for it. Uh. Okay.
Going to the moon was an amazing achievement. Being a flag is not.
If it was a chunk of the Berlin Wall, it'd be fucking worthless. The Berlin Wall was an extremely large thing and was broken into many pieces that are sold all over the world. Unless it's a very large piece of the wall (like, at least the size of a person) and it is covered with some of the known graffiti that was popular on the wall, then a chunk of the Berlin Wall is worth about as much as a chunk of any other rock laying around. The only market for pieces of the Berlin Wall today are in selling to sucker tourists, the same way those stupid "collector plates" you see sold on television have no value, but will get a quick first sale to some idiot decorating their house in Andy Griffith commemorative collector dinner plates.
Even if it did go to the moon, I don't see why anyone would care. Placing a value on objects simply because of who owned them or where they were at a point in history is just as absurd as placing a value on someone's "autograph". Unless a signature is attached to a fat check directly cashable to me, then I don't see what the hell I care about some ink on a piece of paper.
I met Buzz Aldrin when I was a kid. That was awesome. It wouldn't have been made more awesome by getting an autograph from him or by planting a flag on him and then selling strips of that flag on eBay.
Yeah, but isn't the point to improve the google customer/browsing/searching experience? Otherwise it'd be a wild west of search engines with the caveat that you should manipulate the results however you want on your end, for a better result set. Things like the ability to block domains per-user are nice for one-off circumstances, but things like ehow/yahoo.answers/chacha and similar are of no use to anyone and certainly don't belong in the top results anymore than a malware site does.
Actually, it looks like they've raised the limit to 500 domains. That's a lot more reasonable. There's more than 50 that I need to block for a better experience, but I probably couldn't come up with near 500 regular offenders.
Problem is, it only allows you to blacklist 50 domains (or did, last time I used the feature).
I suppose suggesting google should block them is a bit harsh, but it'd be nice if they had a way to more appropriately rank them. The quality and accuracy and meaningfulness of the content deserves placement a few pages down; the only reason they have the top three or five results most of the time, is due to a more broad manipulation unrelated to the actual individual content. If the content was valuable (like wikipedia results), I'd have no problem with it rising to the top - even with a nudge by google as a judgement call.