They cancelled this policy almost immediately after it was brought to light.
I dunno. Are the 0.01%ers trying to figure out a new way to fuck over the middle class?
Since middle class wages have stagnated since the late '70s our share of the tax burden hasn't really been able to grow, and the rich have had their burden reduced quite a bit. So now we have massive debts. Gotta pay 'em somehow. I know, sounds kooky, right?! Look at the filial responsibility laws. Parent racking up huge debts to the state because of the care they need in old age? Think you won't have to pay for that? Think again.
I expect that we'll start to see enforcement as a way to shift more of the tax burden onto the middle class (at least what's left of it). Banana Republic here we come.
But attacking her personally is not necessary or relevant.
Pointing out that she has NO medical training is NOT "attacking her personally".
Actually, "attacking her personally" with words I think at this point is warranted. She is putting a lot of people at risk of death through her public advocacy. I'll be surprised if at some point someone who's child died due believing her bullshit doesn't decide to attack her personally with actual violence. I know I wouldn't want a grieving parent blaming me for the death of their child.
Rich people are allowed to convince the police officer to not give them a speeding ticket using their form of free speech (money), just as you're allowed to convince the police officer to not give you a speeding ticket using your form of free speech (words from your mouth).
Guess which one will probably result in a beating.
How about the people that read the Bible and don't listen to God? Many "religious" people are basically frauds. They take the parts of the Bible that suit them and ignore the really important stuff.
I was saying the same thing to a "Scotsman" just the other day. As we all know no Scotsman drinks his tea with cream. Well here was this "Scotsman" drinking his tea with cream. I said to him,"No true Scotsman drinks his tea with cream." He replied,"Well I drink my tea with cream!" I said,"As I said,'No true Scotsman drinks his tea with cream.'"
Such a limited view of justice, such that justice doesn't exist except your version of justice, which by definition isn't justice but revenge. Which is how you view others definitions of justice, and thus, is exactly what you typed here.
Translation:
God works in mysterious ways.
I figure you can substitute the phrase "fucked up" for 'mysterious' and the meaning would be more clear. Or maybe just add it, i.e. "God works in mysterious, fucked up ways."
Simply put (because I realize you probably can't understand the above)...
Thank you, Archangel Michael, for deigning to try to educate the uneducable. You are doing, err... God's work.
... that is the whole liberal mindset, freedom to do whatever you want, whenever you want and avoid consequences at whatever cost. Blaming others for their own failures.
Nice straw man. Were you able to kick his ass? I hear they can be rough.
So the guy at the PC said to himself "Thank you for nothing, guys" and went making himself coffee.
Actually the guy at the computer decided to torture those little fucks for the rest of eternity for being so presumptuous, because he loved them unconditionally.
How many of these 100 faculty (or is it 93?) are actually qualified to have an opinion about this?
Conservatives sure are a funny (insane?) bunch nowadays. If you're an actual scientist who is an expert in climate research, and say that climate change is real, that man is causing it, and that it will probably be a bad thing overall then you're just shilling for more of that lucrative research money (and want to destroy America). If you're not a scientist who is an expert in the field, but defer your judgement to those who are experts (of which 97% are in agreement) as most educated people do, then you're not qualified to speak on the matter, so you should just shut up (because you want to destroy America).
Honestly, four or five (or ten?) years ago I might have just thought that you didn't have the facts, but in the year 2014 I just find it weird. Why is reducing how much oil we burn such a bad thing? I don't fucking get it.
and that there are a lot of people that have no voice at all.
The reason those people have "no voice at all" is because... they don't have the money to pay for it. That really does make the point that money is required for the full exercise of free speech.
In this country (the US), yes I'll give you that, but it shouldn't be that way. They've gamed the system so that the more money you have, the more speech you have, but it's a rigged system.
I'm saying that inherently money != free speech, and that the law should reflect that. If we had a constitutional amendment explicitly stating that money != free speech then we could talk sensibly about limiting its corrupting influence. As it is now it has taken pretty much all of the power away from the people. You say "ah, but go out and vote!" Okay, I'll go vote for asshole 'A' or asshole 'B'. Those are my realistic choices. Not much of a choice there, and the billions floating around in politics ensures that will always be the case.
America is deluded that they were great to begin with. A super power? Maybe. But 'great'? Wtf.
Sorry. Our founding fathers were mostly a bunch of bad asses with really good ideas that they were willing to fight for, and the country that came out of that fight was great.
It's the money grubbing assholes who are fucking it up now by claiming that money = free speech and corporations are people. That means that the ultra rich have at least 10,000 times as much speech as most of us, and that there are a lot of people that have no voice at all. Money should not be equivalent to free speech. Never. It's a fucking travesty that it is, and the people who made it so are destroying our country. I'm not being hyperbolic here.
The real question here is why a politician is actually asking perfectly legitimate questions, but is being labeled stupid on Slashdot for doing so.
It's so fitting that your username is Jane Q. Public. You are an excellent representative of the general public and their ignorance on all things scientific.
When drugs are gone, you still have the kidnappings and the corruption.
I really doubt that you would have it on the same level as we have it today, but I don't think that is the reason to legalize drugs.
We should legalize drugs because it is the right thing to do. The drug laws are a relic of the past when people thought that it was okay to legislate their brand of morality. We now know that drug prohibition causes much more harm than good, and so that makes it dangerous and wrong to continue down the prohibition path. The war on drugs is a failure, and to keep pushing for these laws either means that you're insane, or you want to manipulate the public or are being manipulated.
I do think that as a side benefit of legalization we will see less violence and criminal activity by the cartels, less money to corrupt politicians, less money to buy arms, less money to pay muscle, etc. etc, but of course we won't see these benefits if we don't even try.
We can't even get people to agree on daylight savings time.
DST is an anachronism. Only old people (esp. those in congress) oppose getting rid of it. I suspect that when they die off we'll be able to relegate it to the dust bin of history.
Reminds me of an old joke: if the opposite of pro is con, the opposite of progress is...
I'm thinking that we're going to have to go through something similar, but with the current thinking among conservatives, it's going to be a lot worse. The Fuck-You-I-Got-Mine Capitalism is going to come to a bloody end.
In the bible slavery, polygamy, genocide are all fine.
I get that you might have some difficulty accepting that its not to be taken literally, its a common disorder among techies, we have a difficult time accepting that not everything means exactly what it says sometimes since we tend to work in technical absolutes as much as possible... but if you are so utterly stupid that you think it 'approves' of those things then I realize I'm wrong, you're not that stupid, you're that ignorant.
Let's just take a look at mass murder. I'm sure you remember the story about the walls of Jericho, right?
Then the Lord said to Joshua, "See, I have delivered Jericho into your hands, along with its king and its fighting men.["]... Joshua commanded the army, "Shout! For the Lord has given you the city! The city and all that is in it are to be devoted* to the Lord... so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city. They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it - men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys... Then they burned the whole city and everything in it, but they put the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron into the treasury of the Lord's house... So the Lord was with Joshua, and his fame spread throughout the land.
Maybe that doesn't fit the exact description of genocide, but it is GOD commanding mass murder.
This is my favorite sentence from that chapter:
All the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron are sacred to the Lord and must go into his treasury.
See, the Creator of the Universe needs some cold hard cash, similar to today. You'd think he'd be even better than the fed at printing money being the all powerful ruler of everything, but alas, no.
Regarding the actual definition of genocide, this is him saying to commit genocide:
For the day has come to destroy all the Philistines and to remove all survivors who could help Tyre and Sidon.
Show me where, in anything that I just posted, that it says not to take it literally, because it looks literal to me. Or do you mean that your pastor told you not to take it literally?
The bible as a work of literature has its exemplary moments, and I would encourage everyone to read it, from start to finish. But as a book on morality it is severely lacking in that you can never tell what to take literally, and what to not take literally. I guess use your own judgement? Well, you don't need the bible to do that.
*The Hebrew term refers to the irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the Lord, often by totally destroying them
Slashdot Mirror
And I don't have a mansion or yacht.
Repeat after me: "My name is Enry J. Fudd. Miwyonaire. I own a mansion and a yacht."
We're all Americans now, asshole.
That would make a hilarious book!
Or maybe his daughter Ayn 'Rand' Paul?
You're so fucking delusional if you believe that the ultra-rich aren't pulling the levers of power that you're hopeless.
They cancelled this policy almost immediately after it was brought to light.
I dunno. Are the 0.01%ers trying to figure out a new way to fuck over the middle class?
Since middle class wages have stagnated since the late '70s our share of the tax burden hasn't really been able to grow, and the rich have had their burden reduced quite a bit. So now we have massive debts. Gotta pay 'em somehow. I know, sounds kooky, right?! Look at the filial responsibility laws. Parent racking up huge debts to the state because of the care they need in old age? Think you won't have to pay for that? Think again.
I expect that we'll start to see enforcement as a way to shift more of the tax burden onto the middle class (at least what's left of it). Banana Republic here we come.
But attacking her personally is not necessary or relevant.
Pointing out that she has NO medical training is NOT "attacking her personally".
Actually, "attacking her personally" with words I think at this point is warranted. She is putting a lot of people at risk of death through her public advocacy. I'll be surprised if at some point someone who's child died due believing her bullshit doesn't decide to attack her personally with actual violence. I know I wouldn't want a grieving parent blaming me for the death of their child.
This is tantamount to soliciting bribes.
But it's not. Remember: money = free speech.
Rich people are allowed to convince the police officer to not give them a speeding ticket using their form of free speech (money), just as you're allowed to convince the police officer to not give you a speeding ticket using your form of free speech (words from your mouth).
Guess which one will probably result in a beating.
The devastating results to your democracy are blatantly obvious to everyone around the world to see.
Obvious to everyone except our lunatic conservatives. Or maybe it is obvious to them and this is their goal.
How about the people that read the Bible and don't listen to God?
Many "religious" people are basically frauds. They take the parts of the Bible that suit them and ignore the really important stuff.
I was saying the same thing to a "Scotsman" just the other day.
As we all know no Scotsman drinks his tea with cream.
Well here was this "Scotsman" drinking his tea with cream.
I said to him,"No true Scotsman drinks his tea with cream."
He replied,"Well I drink my tea with cream!"
I said,"As I said,'No true Scotsman drinks his tea with cream.'"
Such a limited view of justice, such that justice doesn't exist except your version of justice, which by definition isn't justice but revenge. Which is how you view others definitions of justice, and thus, is exactly what you typed here.
Translation:
God works in mysterious ways.
I figure you can substitute the phrase "fucked up" for 'mysterious' and the meaning would be more clear. Or maybe just add it, i.e. "God works in mysterious, fucked up ways."
Simply put (because I realize you probably can't understand the above)...
Thank you, Archangel Michael, for deigning to try to educate the uneducable. You are doing, err... God's work.
... that is the whole liberal mindset, freedom to do whatever you want, whenever you want and avoid consequences at whatever cost. Blaming others for their own failures.
Nice straw man. Were you able to kick his ass? I hear they can be rough.
So the guy at the PC said to himself "Thank you for nothing, guys" and went making himself coffee.
Actually the guy at the computer decided to torture those little fucks for the rest of eternity for being so presumptuous, because he loved them unconditionally.
How many of these 100 faculty (or is it 93?) are actually qualified to have an opinion about this?
Conservatives sure are a funny (insane?) bunch nowadays. If you're an actual scientist who is an expert in climate research, and say that climate change is real, that man is causing it, and that it will probably be a bad thing overall then you're just shilling for more of that lucrative research money (and want to destroy America). If you're not a scientist who is an expert in the field, but defer your judgement to those who are experts (of which 97% are in agreement) as most educated people do, then you're not qualified to speak on the matter, so you should just shut up (because you want to destroy America).
Honestly, four or five (or ten?) years ago I might have just thought that you didn't have the facts, but in the year 2014 I just find it weird. Why is reducing how much oil we burn such a bad thing? I don't fucking get it.
and that there are a lot of people that have no voice at all.
The reason those people have "no voice at all" is because ... they don't have the money to pay for it. That really does make the point that money is required for the full exercise of free speech.
In this country (the US), yes I'll give you that, but it shouldn't be that way. They've gamed the system so that the more money you have, the more speech you have, but it's a rigged system.
I'm saying that inherently money != free speech, and that the law should reflect that. If we had a constitutional amendment explicitly stating that money != free speech then we could talk sensibly about limiting its corrupting influence. As it is now it has taken pretty much all of the power away from the people. You say "ah, but go out and vote!" Okay, I'll go vote for asshole 'A' or asshole 'B'. Those are my realistic choices. Not much of a choice there, and the billions floating around in politics ensures that will always be the case.
America is deluded that they were great to begin with. A super power? Maybe. But 'great'? Wtf.
Sorry. Our founding fathers were mostly a bunch of bad asses with really good ideas that they were willing to fight for, and the country that came out of that fight was great.
It's the money grubbing assholes who are fucking it up now by claiming that money = free speech and corporations are people. That means that the ultra rich have at least 10,000 times as much speech as most of us, and that there are a lot of people that have no voice at all. Money should not be equivalent to free speech. Never. It's a fucking travesty that it is, and the people who made it so are destroying our country. I'm not being hyperbolic here.
I hope they get $1Bn too
Meh. I would certainly rather get behind this than FB's Oculus Grift.
Mmm hmm. Next you're going to tell me that Mormons are real.
The real question here is why a politician is actually asking perfectly legitimate questions, but is being labeled stupid on Slashdot for doing so.
It's so fitting that your username is Jane Q. Public. You are an excellent representative of the general public and their ignorance on all things scientific.
When drugs are gone, you still have the kidnappings and the corruption.
I really doubt that you would have it on the same level as we have it today, but I don't think that is the reason to legalize drugs.
We should legalize drugs because it is the right thing to do. The drug laws are a relic of the past when people thought that it was okay to legislate their brand of morality. We now know that drug prohibition causes much more harm than good, and so that makes it dangerous and wrong to continue down the prohibition path. The war on drugs is a failure, and to keep pushing for these laws either means that you're insane, or you want to manipulate the public or are being manipulated.
I do think that as a side benefit of legalization we will see less violence and criminal activity by the cartels, less money to corrupt politicians, less money to buy arms, less money to pay muscle, etc. etc, but of course we won't see these benefits if we don't even try.
with eSATA, USB 3.0, FireWire 800, HDMI, DVI, RJ45, RJ11 and Thunderbolt ports ? With a 40-year upgrade plan for future interface types ?
FireWire? Is this 1996?
Firewire is so dead, here's an article talking about how Steve Jobs said Firewire is dead.
Cunts?
We can't even get people to agree on daylight savings time.
DST is an anachronism. Only old people (esp. those in congress) oppose getting rid of it. I suspect that when they die off we'll be able to relegate it to the dust bin of history.
Reminds me of an old joke: if the opposite of pro is con, the opposite of progress is ...
Don't be put off because of its religious origin - it's the demonstration of a point that has been known for thousands of years.
at some point we're going to end up with a civilization like in Star Trek TNG
First --- I wish, that would be an incredible and ideal future.
But society is based on power and control, both in government and private industry.
Well, they did go through the Bell Riots first.
I'm thinking that we're going to have to go through something similar, but with the current thinking among conservatives, it's going to be a lot worse. The Fuck-You-I-Got-Mine Capitalism is going to come to a bloody end.
In the bible slavery, polygamy, genocide are all fine.
I get that you might have some difficulty accepting that its not to be taken literally, its a common disorder among techies, we have a difficult time accepting that not everything means exactly what it says sometimes since we tend to work in technical absolutes as much as possible ... but if you are so utterly stupid that you think it 'approves' of those things then I realize I'm wrong, you're not that stupid, you're that ignorant.
Let's just take a look at mass murder. I'm sure you remember the story about the walls of Jericho, right?
Then the Lord said to Joshua, "See, I have delivered Jericho into your hands, along with its king and its fighting men.["] ... Joshua commanded the army, "Shout! For the Lord has given you the city! The city and all that is in it are to be devoted* to the Lord ... so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city. They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it - men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys... Then they burned the whole city and everything in it, but they put the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron into the treasury of the Lord's house... So the Lord was with Joshua, and his fame spread throughout the land.
Maybe that doesn't fit the exact description of genocide, but it is GOD commanding mass murder.
This is my favorite sentence from that chapter:
All the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron are sacred to the Lord and must go into his treasury.
See, the Creator of the Universe needs some cold hard cash, similar to today. You'd think he'd be even better than the fed at printing money being the all powerful ruler of everything, but alas, no.
Regarding the actual definition of genocide, this is him saying to commit genocide:
For the day has come to destroy all the Philistines and to remove all survivors who could help Tyre and Sidon.
Show me where, in anything that I just posted, that it says not to take it literally, because it looks literal to me. Or do you mean that your pastor told you not to take it literally?
The bible as a work of literature has its exemplary moments, and I would encourage everyone to read it, from start to finish. But as a book on morality it is severely lacking in that you can never tell what to take literally, and what to not take literally. I guess use your own judgement? Well, you don't need the bible to do that.
*The Hebrew term refers to the irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the Lord, often by totally destroying them