The reverse is seldom true. Right wingers generally understand why those on the left hold their views- it's just we quite simply don't agree, for a variety of reasons that are beyond the scope of this discussion.
You owe me a new keyboard, and a new cup of coffee. Right wingers think that the left loves fundamentalist Islam because they hate both the left and Islam, so the two must be really the same thing. It's like how Hitler wrote about Germany being ruined by the Communist international bankers, because you know, the one thing international bankers really love is giving all of their money to the workers.
Well, that could be part of the problem. If you live somewhere with sane elections (like anywhere that requires a majority to elect someone and holds a runoff election if there isn't one), voting for a third party might seem smart.
First of all, it's not even a good citation for the existence of such a law in New York or New Jersey. And not only because it's completely unclear for the page you linked to which state they're even taking about. The page quotes some random cop. Ask the cops who, a newspaper investigation in Pittsburgh recently found, arrested almost 200 people for flipping them off and/or swearing at them whether there's a law saying you can't flip off a cop, or, alternatively, whether it's been found that people have a Constitutional right to flip off cops and arresting them for "disorderly conduct" on that basis is illegal, and presumably they'll all give you the incorrect answer.
But more to the point, the OP said there was such a law in California, to which the response is, and continues to be "This is 100% complete and utter fabricated bullshit. There is no such law."
quite possibly the verifiability guideline... I would still ban original research however
So I can post something that can't be verified anywhere, but only if I didn't make it up myself? Where exactly am I getting information that didn't come from me and also didn't come from another source?
Umm, you're linking to a quote from a small town police officer in New York from a (cached version of a) webpage about a supposed law in New Jersey to prove that a law exists in California? This may be a new low in understanding what "evidence" means.
I know I'm not alone on this and by offering up votes to a third party it's a way to show our disappointment in the current system.
Well, it's certainly an excellent way of helping to elect whichever of the 2 major party candidates you disagree with the most. Our plurality wins system may suck, but protesting it by letting its worst feature exploit you is just dumb.
It seems when Republicans call for bipartisanship, it really means "Do everything I say.". I'm hoping that one day, the Speaker really requires them to stand up and talk for 30 hours, instead of simply declare the intent to filibuster.:)
I'm sure the Speaker of the Senate will get right on that as soon as they create the position.
...and, by the way, Slashdot's own TOS say that by posting here you grant "SourceForge the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license."
Sounds just like Google's terms. OMG, Slashdot is evil!
I will. If you don't grant them a license to your photos when you upload them to Picasa, they can't legally display them on the service without infringing your copyright.
The NHL managed the same sort of mutually beneficial deal not too long ago, although technically it was management rather than labor who started the whole process.
Umm, exactly what law prevents companies from merging if it would give a third, unrelated company a monopoly? If the deal does create a Google monopoly, it could effectively make some actions by Google illegal, but the deal itself wouldn't be illegal on those grounds.
Slashdot Mirror
It's typical for me to write 10-20 lines of simple, elegant PHP code that performs wonders matched only by hundreds of lines of C.
Or 1 line of perl.
The reverse is seldom true. Right wingers generally understand why those on the left hold their views- it's just we quite simply don't agree, for a variety of reasons that are beyond the scope of this discussion.
You owe me a new keyboard, and a new cup of coffee. Right wingers think that the left loves fundamentalist Islam because they hate both the left and Islam, so the two must be really the same thing. It's like how Hitler wrote about Germany being ruined by the Communist international bankers, because you know, the one thing international bankers really love is giving all of their money to the workers.
But hey, I'm not even american, what do I know?
Well, that could be part of the problem. If you live somewhere with sane elections (like anywhere that requires a majority to elect someone and holds a runoff election if there isn't one), voting for a third party might seem smart.
Well, Biden anyway. McCain doesn't know how to use email.
And people laughed at my plan to put the entire Social Security trust fund in a giant freezer.
First of all, it's not even a good citation for the existence of such a law in New York or New Jersey. And not only because it's completely unclear for the page you linked to which state they're even taking about. The page quotes some random cop. Ask the cops who, a newspaper investigation in Pittsburgh recently found, arrested almost 200 people for flipping them off and/or swearing at them whether there's a law saying you can't flip off a cop, or, alternatively, whether it's been found that people have a Constitutional right to flip off cops and arresting them for "disorderly conduct" on that basis is illegal, and presumably they'll all give you the incorrect answer.
But more to the point, the OP said there was such a law in California, to which the response is, and continues to be "This is 100% complete and utter fabricated bullshit. There is no such law."
quite possibly the verifiability guideline... I would still ban original research however
So I can post something that can't be verified anywhere, but only if I didn't make it up myself? Where exactly am I getting information that didn't come from me and also didn't come from another source?
You'd rather have your kids drinking them driving back across the border rather than drinking in their dorm rooms and not driving at all?
Please don't have kids.
Umm, you're linking to a quote from a small town police officer in New York from a (cached version of a) webpage about a supposed law in New Jersey to prove that a law exists in California? This may be a new low in understanding what "evidence" means.
I agree. Eoin Colfer should definitely devote his time to programming an Infocom game instead of writing a book.
Yeah, it's pointed out by a representative of the chemical industry.
I know I'm not alone on this and by offering up votes to a third party it's a way to show our disappointment in the current system.
Well, it's certainly an excellent way of helping to elect whichever of the 2 major party candidates you disagree with the most. Our plurality wins system may suck, but protesting it by letting its worst feature exploit you is just dumb.
It seems when Republicans call for bipartisanship, it really means "Do everything I say.". I'm hoping that one day, the Speaker really requires them to stand up and talk for 30 hours, instead of simply declare the intent to filibuster. :)
I'm sure the Speaker of the Senate will get right on that as soon as they create the position.
There are a lot more birds around than crocodiles. Dinosaurs are still ahead.
Shakespeare's French was abysmal, though.
...and, by the way, Slashdot's own TOS say that by posting here you grant "SourceForge the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license." Sounds just like Google's terms. OMG, Slashdot is evil!
I will. If you don't grant them a license to your photos when you upload them to Picasa, they can't legally display them on the service without infringing your copyright.
That site is broken. It's reading "YES" but the Earth is still here.
Yeah, and screw the people who can't afford a vehicle with a nav system; who cares if they get hopelessly lost?
The NHL managed the same sort of mutually beneficial deal not too long ago, although technically it was management rather than labor who started the whole process.
You're unlikely to see scholarly publications online in anything but PDF or HTML any time soon.
In America, that's what we call a huge breach of privacy. That would allow anyone who can see my car to find out what kind of car it is!
Yeah, how dare those people think they have the right to choose not to see funny posts? I'll tell them what they should and shouldn't read.
Personally, I mod all offtopic comments as "Insightful" so people who have "Offtopic" at -5 can still read them.
Umm, exactly what law prevents companies from merging if it would give a third, unrelated company a monopoly? If the deal does create a Google monopoly, it could effectively make some actions by Google illegal, but the deal itself wouldn't be illegal on those grounds.
I agree. And I think cars would be a lot higher in quality if GM and Toyota bought up every other car company to increase competition.