Legal equality is fine. While I don't think a constitutional amendment is required (on either side) I would support (even vote in favor of) laws that would convey the same legal rights for civil unions that legal marriage is already afforded.
Again...for the cheap seats...legal equality is fine with me...just don't call it a marriage.
I am opposed to gay marriage. I am not disturbed or in denial. I am a Christian.
The issue is the definition of marriage. It's not just a legal concept. If it were then Christians wouldn't care. I don't care if gays get a driver's license because that is just a legal concept. Marriage is an institution established by God as being between a man and a woman. That is why us Jesus-freak, Bible-thumpin' intolerants have such an issue with "gay marriage". It represents biblical principles that are sacred to us. Allowing gays to be "married" goes against those principles.
Now...if gays want to be civilly-united so they can have all the legal, state-created rights afforded to those that are married then I say go for it. I have no problem with that because that is just a legal concept.
Radical gays that have a political agenda are pushing this as a social deconstruction device. This country was founded on biblical principles. Anti-God types want to undo that so they have to deconstruct our current way of life so they can reconstruct it based on their way.
Currently our civil, human rights that are assigned to us by God are enumerated in our founding documents as a legal concept. That means the government can't touch them for any reason. As soon as God is removed from every aspect of our goverment and way of life then our rights will have to default to be granted to us by the government and therefore changeable.
It's not just about homophobia (which I do not suffer from)...that is just a convenient, emotional label used when the folks with the deconstruction agenda are presented with the facts I stated above.
Every time I think Linux has a chance to really change the world, I see some fucking retard like you running your mouth off.
Your "holier than thou" elitist attitude is laughable at best. Everytime someone points out that Linux won't change the world the way you want it to (hello? reality calling...) someone like you, not having the courage to post under your actual UID, has to pop-off their upside down view of reality.
/. users are a very small minority of PC owners/users. Get over the fact that you want it your way when Joe Sixpack doesn't give flip-one about the stuff you seem to hold most dear. HE JUST WANTS IT TO WORK! To him...Windows just works.
I've yet to use Mono but I think its a big step towards making it easier and more acceptable to spend dollars developing an app that runs on both Mono and.NET. Again, Joe Sixpack isn't going to search sourcforge.net looking for an app that is close to what he wants to be able to do on his PC. He wants to pick up the Best Buy ad from the Sunday paper and pick from there. So unless he owns a Mac or an x86 Windows box he ain't gonna be able to do that.
I want to see MS write MS Office in.NET so that it runs on linux. You think they'll do that? Yeah Right!
If MS thinks they can make a buck or two from doing that then you had better believe they will.
I think.NET is MS hedging it's bets against eventually losing (as they define losing) in the OS arena. Eventually the OS will become irrelevant and the "frameworks" (currently Java (technically not a framework), Mono and.NET) will be the next wave to ride.
Does anyone actually believe that MS has not thought this far ahead?
The only way the RIAA will get the picture is for artists to start self-releasing their songs. Until the artists do this there will never be an RIAA-blessed way to purchase downloadable music without DRM involved. Artists need to quit signing contracts with the RIAA companies already!
What does the RIAA provide artists? Promotion and startup costs (among other things). Artists, like people, would rather "get rich quick" than work up to it slowly. The RIAA companies say things to make them sign their rights away to them in exchange for promotion and covering the cost of cutting the CD's etc.
So what needs to happen is more low-cost promotion agencies to pop up and fulfill this function for the artists. The cost of production can be significantly lower if the artist simply chooses to distribute online only...maybe create a few thousand cd's if they want for tours and such.
Once a few big name artists are persuaded to self-release with $onlineSite then the floodgates would be open IMO.
I think the "iffy" part comes from the fact that these other babies (did I just "out" my position?:) ) created as part of the process become abandoned if the folks going through the IVF process get what they wanted before those other babies (oops I did it again) are implanted.
I see your point about using them instead of "wasting" them but folks who are on the side of pro-life consider human life to be more than just a cluster of cells. All human life has dignity and rights. The destruction of that life for whatever reason goes against those rights.
I'm sure I'm going to get flamed for saying they have rights...whatever...I don't care.
While I doubt the law in question would do anything like what you are suggesting...you aren't without recourse.
Did you pay using PayPal? If so file a complaint. You can also file complaints with eBay themselves and they will investigate. Make sure you save all your e-mails from them and the fedex info.
*The federal drinking age is not actualy a mandatory law. Rather the federal drinking age is a condition of recieving federal money for highway and road matenence in the state. A state could have a lower drinking age. Most chose not to.
This is why the federal government couldn't collect income tax as an indirect tax, as decided by the courts, from its citizens.
It is a state's rights issue and the feds shouldn't be involved. The fact that money=power has turned our form of government upside-down because of this.
The conclusion is to abolsh the IRS with the FairTax legislation and then take the next step to begin to starve the beast...then we the people can get our power back.
In the U.S.A. I believe you are correct. In Canada (I'm a U.S. citizen) they pay a tax on blank media that is "given" to the music companies so I think it's legal for them (Canadians please correct me if I'm wrong).
If I owned a shop in Canada I would set up for exactly that.
I have been waiting for a sumission like this so I could post what has been rolling around in my brain for quite some time...here goes:
The goverment of the United States was originally intended to be empowering to the people and severely limiting to the Federal governement. State and local government were to be able to dismiss just about (if not all) federal laws they didn't wish to follow. I don't think the same thing exists between the local and state governments but it could depending on how the state constitution reads.
So...why is it there don't seem to be any state's rights left? The answer is the rights are still there just as they always have been. The difference is FEDERAL DOLLARS. The feds pretty much say if you want to continue getting money from us then you will comply with this law/rule/regulation. I believe this is the very reason why there was a specific ban on "direct taxes" on the people by the federal government in the constitution. Money is power...something the founding fathers wanted the federal government to have very little of.
What to do about this? Kill off the sources of cash to the Federal government..."Starve the beast" as it has been referred to in recent months (at least in reference to social security). Fairtax would be a great place to start...HR25 (House) and S25 (Senate) are already on the floor for debate and are the "fairtax" bills. Write/call/e-mail/contact your reprosentatives and get this going while there is momentum. This is a great first-step towards doing away with the direct federal taxation of it's citizens.
Once (if ever) this is taken away from the federal government, Here is what I think should be the structure for the U.S.:
States should be the one's collecting all the tax revenue that is now currently going to the federal government. Each state should have it's own social security, medicare, welfare, education, etc. programs. This would give the citizens of the U.S. a choice...and they could choose by moving to whatever state has the set up they like the most.
States should give support to the military, CIA, FBI, etc. from the tax revenue they receive from their citizens based on the population of the state (or something equally fair).
Money should never be flowing from the citizens to the federal government and then back to the states...that's just backwards.
Some may say, "what if I move and I have paid into xyz state's social security, medicare, etc. programs. How does that transfer?" Well...that's where the representatives we send to Washington D.C. come into play. They would have to craft a way for this to be able to happen while providing maximum flexibility for the states to craft their programs how they see fit. That way the citizens have more direct control over this kind of thing...power to the people as it was originally intended. Additionally...sentators should go back to being appointed by the state governments as representatives of the state and not the citizens as it is now. That is how it was originally crafted...and under this arrangment it should be restored to it's original way.
No...what's really hard to believe is tripe like this gets modded insightful simply because there is a line in it bashing Bush and the Libs-with-mod-points on this board still can't get over the fact they are in the minority and lost the last two elections.
> And before you say "nobody forced them to sign away their rights" realize that the **AAs have created an environment that makes it difficult to make it on your own. As an example, payola to radio stations is illegal, and yet it continues unabated. >
Illegalities aside (I don't know if payola still happens or not but I would be willing to bet it does) it's not really the RIAA that has created the "difficult environment" but rather they are catering to the basic laziness of their target demographic (i.e. PLEASE TELL ME WHAT KIND OF MUSIC I LIKE!). This would be the Brittany Spears' lovin' teenie boppers who don't make a move without looking around to see what others are doing first.
The entertainment industry is shifting like it or not. What needs to happen is a set of marketing groups (and other service-providing-groups that decentralize all the "services" the **AAs currently provide) that work with indie artists without screwing them. This will happen over time as more and more artists that are worth their salt start to go the indie route. Couple this with easy-to-find-and-obtain music (via the 'net in some form) and kiss the **AAs goodbye (at least in their current form).
Slashdot Mirror
I have no problem with that at all. Not sure why you ask though.
Legal equality is fine. While I don't think a constitutional amendment is required (on either side) I would support (even vote in favor of) laws that would convey the same legal rights for civil unions that legal marriage is already afforded.
Again...for the cheap seats...legal equality is fine with me...just don't call it a marriage.
I am opposed to gay marriage. I am not disturbed or in denial. I am a Christian.
The issue is the definition of marriage. It's not just a legal concept. If it were then Christians wouldn't care. I don't care if gays get a driver's license because that is just a legal concept. Marriage is an institution established by God as being between a man and a woman. That is why us Jesus-freak, Bible-thumpin' intolerants have such an issue with "gay marriage". It represents biblical principles that are sacred to us. Allowing gays to be "married" goes against those principles.
Now...if gays want to be civilly-united so they can have all the legal, state-created rights afforded to those that are married then I say go for it. I have no problem with that because that is just a legal concept.
Radical gays that have a political agenda are pushing this as a social deconstruction device. This country was founded on biblical principles. Anti-God types want to undo that so they have to deconstruct our current way of life so they can reconstruct it based on their way.
Currently our civil, human rights that are assigned to us by God are enumerated in our founding documents as a legal concept. That means the government can't touch them for any reason. As soon as God is removed from every aspect of our goverment and way of life then our rights will have to default to be granted to us by the government and therefore changeable.
It's not just about homophobia (which I do not suffer from)...that is just a convenient, emotional label used when the folks with the deconstruction agenda are presented with the facts I stated above.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Your stupidity is sickening.
/. users are a very small minority of PC owners/users. Get over the fact that you want it your way when Joe Sixpack doesn't give flip-one about the stuff you seem to hold most dear. HE JUST WANTS IT TO WORK! To him...Windows just works.
.NET. Again, Joe Sixpack isn't going to search sourcforge.net looking for an app that is close to what he wants to be able to do on his PC. He wants to pick up the Best Buy ad from the Sunday paper and pick from there. So unless he owns a Mac or an x86 Windows box he ain't gonna be able to do that.
Every time I think Linux has a chance to really change the world, I see some fucking retard like you running your mouth off.
Your "holier than thou" elitist attitude is laughable at best. Everytime someone points out that Linux won't change the world the way you want it to (hello? reality calling...) someone like you, not having the courage to post under your actual UID, has to pop-off their upside down view of reality.
I've yet to use Mono but I think its a big step towards making it easier and more acceptable to spend dollars developing an app that runs on both Mono and
This is reality.
I want to see MS write MS Office in .NET so that it runs on linux. You think they'll do that? Yeah Right!
.NET is MS hedging it's bets against eventually losing (as they define losing) in the OS arena. Eventually the OS will become irrelevant and the "frameworks" (currently Java (technically not a framework), Mono and .NET) will be the next wave to ride.
If MS thinks they can make a buck or two from doing that then you had better believe they will.
I think
Does anyone actually believe that MS has not thought this far ahead?
The only way the RIAA will get the picture is for artists to start self-releasing their songs. Until the artists do this there will never be an RIAA-blessed way to purchase downloadable music without DRM involved. Artists need to quit signing contracts with the RIAA companies already!
What does the RIAA provide artists? Promotion and startup costs (among other things). Artists, like people, would rather "get rich quick" than work up to it slowly. The RIAA companies say things to make them sign their rights away to them in exchange for promotion and covering the cost of cutting the CD's etc.
So what needs to happen is more low-cost promotion agencies to pop up and fulfill this function for the artists. The cost of production can be significantly lower if the artist simply chooses to distribute online only...maybe create a few thousand cd's if they want for tours and such.
Once a few big name artists are persuaded to self-release with $onlineSite then the floodgates would be open IMO.
I think the "iffy" part comes from the fact that these other babies (did I just "out" my position? :) ) created as part of the process become abandoned if the folks going through the IVF process get what they wanted before those other babies (oops I did it again) are implanted.
I see your point about using them instead of "wasting" them but folks who are on the side of pro-life consider human life to be more than just a cluster of cells. All human life has dignity and rights. The destruction of that life for whatever reason goes against those rights.
I'm sure I'm going to get flamed for saying they have rights...whatever...I don't care.
Tim Sweeney of Epic did an interview about this with GameSpot here.
While I doubt the law in question would do anything like what you are suggesting...you aren't without recourse.
Did you pay using PayPal? If so file a complaint. You can also file complaints with eBay themselves and they will investigate. Make sure you save all your e-mails from them and the fedex info.
Good luck.
*The federal drinking age is not actualy a mandatory law. Rather the federal drinking age is a condition of recieving federal money for highway and road matenence in the state. A state could have a lower drinking age. Most chose not to.
This is why the federal government couldn't collect income tax as an indirect tax, as decided by the courts, from its citizens.
It is a state's rights issue and the feds shouldn't be involved. The fact that money=power has turned our form of government upside-down because of this.
The conclusion is to abolsh the IRS with the FairTax legislation and then take the next step to begin to starve the beast...then we the people can get our power back.
Worked in Firefox 1.0.1 for me.
It's modded down because it references something that the moderator wishes wasn't the case...but is.
This is why I metamod on a regular basis.
In the U.S.A. I believe you are correct. In Canada (I'm a U.S. citizen) they pay a tax on blank media that is "given" to the music companies so I think it's legal for them (Canadians please correct me if I'm wrong).
If I owned a shop in Canada I would set up for exactly that.
B
data.open("GET",url,true);
The "true" as the third argument sets it to async according to this page.
B
That is sooooo last month...try to keep up will ya? :)
My Tivo Thinks I'm Gay!!
Thank you for your post. I was one of those that believed because it was an ECMA standard that it was free and open.
I went to the ecma site and saw this page:
WARNINGS
The liability and responsibility for the implementation of an Ecma Standard rests with the implementor, and not with Ecma.
Below that was a warning and a linke about settling patent issues pertaining to ECMA standards. Scary.
B
I for one welcome the day when every job is replaced by a computer...
This article has a few interesting things to say about how and what kind of jobs get replaced by computers/automation.
...the spellers Slashdot readers...
;)
Shouldn't that be "Slashdot posters"?
I have been waiting for a sumission like this so I could post what has been rolling around in my brain for quite some time...here goes:
The goverment of the United States was originally intended to be empowering to the people and severely limiting to the Federal governement. State and local government were to be able to dismiss just about (if not all) federal laws they didn't wish to follow. I don't think the same thing exists between the local and state governments but it could depending on how the state constitution reads.
So...why is it there don't seem to be any state's rights left? The answer is the rights are still there just as they always have been. The difference is FEDERAL DOLLARS. The feds pretty much say if you want to continue getting money from us then you will comply with this law/rule/regulation. I believe this is the very reason why there was a specific ban on "direct taxes" on the people by the federal government in the constitution. Money is power...something the founding fathers wanted the federal government to have very little of.
What to do about this? Kill off the sources of cash to the Federal government..."Starve the beast" as it has been referred to in recent months (at least in reference to social security). Fairtax would be a great place to start...HR25 (House) and S25 (Senate) are already on the floor for debate and are the "fairtax" bills. Write/call/e-mail/contact your reprosentatives and get this going while there is momentum. This is a great first-step towards doing away with the direct federal taxation of it's citizens.
Once (if ever) this is taken away from the federal government, Here is what I think should be the structure for the U.S.:
States should be the one's collecting all the tax revenue that is now currently going to the federal government. Each state should have it's own social security, medicare, welfare, education, etc. programs. This would give the citizens of the U.S. a choice...and they could choose by moving to whatever state has the set up they like the most.
States should give support to the military, CIA, FBI, etc. from the tax revenue they receive from their citizens based on the population of the state (or something equally fair).
Money should never be flowing from the citizens to the federal government and then back to the states...that's just backwards.
Some may say, "what if I move and I have paid into xyz state's social security, medicare, etc. programs. How does that transfer?" Well...that's where the representatives we send to Washington D.C. come into play. They would have to craft a way for this to be able to happen while providing maximum flexibility for the states to craft their programs how they see fit. That way the citizens have more direct control over this kind of thing...power to the people as it was originally intended. Additionally...sentators should go back to being appointed by the state governments as representatives of the state and not the citizens as it is now. That is how it was originally crafted...and under this arrangment it should be restored to it's original way.
Thanks for proving my point while refuting your own.
51% is a MAJORITY last I checked.
Granted this is the majority of voters which, although it may not, represent the country as a whole (discounting fraud).
No...what's really hard to believe is tripe like this gets modded insightful simply because there is a line in it bashing Bush and the Libs-with-mod-points on this board still can't get over the fact they are in the minority and lost the last two elections.
>
And before you say "nobody forced them to sign away their rights" realize that the **AAs have created an environment that makes it difficult to make it on your own. As an example, payola to radio stations is illegal, and yet it continues unabated.
>
Illegalities aside (I don't know if payola still happens or not but I would be willing to bet it does) it's not really the RIAA that has created the "difficult environment" but rather they are catering to the basic laziness of their target demographic (i.e. PLEASE TELL ME WHAT KIND OF MUSIC I LIKE!). This would be the Brittany Spears' lovin' teenie boppers who don't make a move without looking around to see what others are doing first.
The entertainment industry is shifting like it or not. What needs to happen is a set of marketing groups (and other service-providing-groups that decentralize all the "services" the **AAs currently provide) that work with indie artists without screwing them. This will happen over time as more and more artists that are worth their salt start to go the indie route. Couple this with easy-to-find-and-obtain music (via the 'net in some form) and kiss the **AAs goodbye (at least in their current form).
I can't wait.
If you love them so much why don't you move there and help them out instead of posting anonymously on /. like a giant wuss.
Thank God idiots like you aren't in the majority.