(US) Interestingly, i was late paying a speeding ticket and failed to appear in court. I was out of town and it completely slipped my mind until i returned home. So i promptly paid the citation and called the police department to see if a warrant for arrest had been issued. The thought was to inform them of the payment so i didn't get stopped and arrested later.
I had to argue with this clerk until she finally had her supervisor step in. She kept saying she couldn't tell me because i might hide. Of course the supervisor started with the premis that i couldn't be beligerant and disrespectful to the clerk. After i told him all i wanted was to know if a warrant had been issued for me. He answered that one was and i would need to carry the reciept with me in case i was stopped before it was revoked.
So sometimes, the people working in government might not even know what the law requires of them. Don't give up on the first try.
Because if they do not offer this metadata as a product at minimum accessible to the people involved, there is a strong case that it is private and the feds or any government organization accessing would absolutely require a warrant according to the constitution.
This is actually about more that trying to see what the government is accessing.
Your entire premis is incorect to start with but your attempt to push a specific version seems to paint the wrong inferences. I would think beating a person to the point they died after suffering for several days might be a bit worse than rape but neither is protected, encouraged, or supported by the US constitution as your original statements make.
Also, defending the confederacy was not about slavery directly until the emancipation proclomation. It was about economic freedom and federalism which the US government was trying to undo. Before lincoln forced the issue to gain support to get reelected, slavery was not a target of thecivil war. Sex with slave was never part of the war nore anyintended cause for remedy after the war.
You seem like a nice guy- just a little misguided and a lot confused about action and inaction and the meaning of such.
Not addressing does not mean protecting. It means it was ignored. You not stopping a mugger from grabbing granny's purse does not mean you protected the criminal.
The 3/5th part had absolutely nothing to do with slavery either. It was only a way to limit the tax burden on slave states and prevent excessive representation.
And yes, the emancipation proclamation was constitutional. The abandond and captured property act of 1863 allowed it. Remember, congress has the ability to grant marks and reprisal but as the south was in insurection, they were considered an invading force too. So slaves at the time being property could very well be confiscated and dispised of in any mannor the commander in chief saw fit. It wasn't until after the civil war and the passage of constitution amendments that slaves could no longer be property. The emancipation proclomation did not free all slaves, it only freed them in the areas of rebellion not held by union forces. This allowed slaves to be caputured by the north (when they left the south) and disposed of (like property) according to the executive powers of the president and as commander in chief.
How cute. You make a claim and still refuse to provide any evidence of its validity whatsoever at all and then insist i am trolling when i call you on it.
I thought you may have been on to something with your little list but it would seem you gave up and instead started trying to change the topic to me trolling. It really is pathetic how you cannot provide a single piece of evidence and yet insist the faul lays with me.
Perhaps you are just trolling and do not actually believe anything you say. Its hard to tell but failing in backing your assertions is very unscientific. Shall we agree that you are anti-science? I think that is a safe assumption.
list the GOP's recent policies on anything dealing with science or the application thereof and that is also a list of anti-science GOP policies...they are the same list
Go ahead and list it. You cannot list anything anti-science else you would have already. This exists all in your head and you know that if you tried, you would have to confront that fact.
look, everyone knows you are trolling
If getting you to live in reality is trolling, so be it. But I don't think it is trolling, I think it is pointing out your failures which seem to be deeply rooted in some screwed up ideology. I can see how you think it might be trolling.
but it's this simple...**you** pick any policy that deals with science and i will explain why the GOP's policy, especially in congress, is anti-science
No, you pick the policy. You are the one making the claim without showing any evidence (because it doesn't exist). You are the one failing and applying stereotypes in some alter reality version of the universe where political opposition suddenly means anti-science. The onus is on you and you cannot do it without a serious fuckton of distortion.
Yeah but they do not watch 'Big Bang Theory' for the abilities of the characters, they watch for the quirks and laughable moments.
In fact, quite a few plot lines on other sitcom shows evolve or devolve around out of place people with idiosyncrasies. It's sort of a go to for Hollywood and it's ilk.
GOP'ers hate science...and work in lockstep to oppose it by policy
that's not in dispute here..
Completely wrong. They work to stop funding in some cases and to stop the economy from being wrecked by political agents using science as their cover and that is all. You have absolutely no evidence otherwise.
.anyone rational enough to understand how our system works and looks at policy rhetoric and votes can draw this conclusion from basic information
Only if they are deluded and think the way you do. Otherwise, they can view the facts and not assign asinine values that do not exist.
that's your problem, you're using rhetoric to support a position that is unsupportable
lol.. All you have done is offer rhetoric. I simply applied your own logic and methods as you apply them and it appears you do not like the outcome of that.
i'm not stereotyping 'GOP'ers'...here is a stereotype: "all asians are bad drivers"
"Yep, you certainly are stereotyping. You include everyone who might be associated with the GOP as all hold whatever fantasy opinions you ascribe to them. That is the same as saying all asians are bad drivers.
stereotypes are unfairly categorizing a group of people based on non-relevant information
Yep, just what you did. You even did it in this post.
GOP'ers choose to support anti-science policies of their own free will, which makes them fair game
And here you are stereotyping again and you are doing so based on completely erroneous presumptions.
Why don't you list some of these anti-science policies. I'm more that confident they are politics and not anti-science. Oh and BTW, not funneling money does not mean anti anything. It means not supporting it. It is rarely a "for anything" or "anti-anything" situation in politics unless it is clearly stated. Nowhere is what you claim clearly stated except by other morons and if you paid half as much attention as you pretend to have, you would know that by now.
He is wrong constitutionally but right in practice. The president is the head of the executive- the top law enforcement officer of the land with the ability to control the actiond of those under him.
Now that being said, he has a constitution duty to ensure the law is faithfully executed. No one takes him to task over it though. Entering the country illegally is a misdemeanor ( felony on second offense) but it doesn't get enforced. Pot is still a scedule 1 drug which means it cannot even be used as a medicine but it doesn't get enforced. Both those are by the will of the president.
Back to the classified stuff. As the administration is head of all departments not delegated its own branch by the constitution, the president is essentially the top employee of any and all departments except congress and the judicial branches. So is the CIA director could declassify something- the president could also. The same is true for any other function where the law doesn't prohibit disclosure ( he couldn't recite your name, address, and social security number that he obtained from the IRS in his state of the union speech).
You really should drop the sex part, it makes you look like a loon.
Granted the constitution did not bar slavery, but you cannot say with any intelectual honesty that it protected or promoted it. I'm sorry you do not like the constitution or the US founding but that does not give you license to imagine crap and pretend it is true.
I have no beef with you. I simply commented about you lack of intelectual curiosity in dismissing the parents point out of hand which is very antiscientific and your steriotyping a diverse group of people with absolutely no evidence which again is antiscientific and refutes logic and reality. Then i made fun of your crying about that.
You see, no beef at all. Just employing your own tactics but properly.
Most of the people i see bitching about tech companies or any company for that matter who offshores cash to avoid taxes seem to object on the grounds of "fairness" and "governmentbis good except when it gets involved over seas". It typically isn't about cApitalistic financial anything.
His buddy doesn't even have to be with the vendor at all. You would be surprised at how many PHBs will make a tech choice based around what one of their friends use and presents as cool.
I used to push (recomend) a groupware/email solution for small businesses i had as clients. It has its own email server without all the hassles of exchange either. It has killer tech support too. Anyways, one of the partners at a lawfirm saw a golf buddy checking his work email on his cell phone. Instead of that partner just getting a phone that could do email (yes, it was that long ago) and using Imap and pushd to sync his email, he demanded we switched to exchange too.
It was funny because he lost his white lists and sender response challenges and was immediately getting swamped with spam until we found a third party spam filter for exchange and even then it didn't work near as well as the other. He had all kinds of complaints but refused to switch back because his cool friend never heard of the other software. Exchange has improved quite a but since then but i still think the other solution offers more in collaboration and spam filtering and is more stable for a business without a dedicated IT.
Btw, the other product is called office logic by lan aces. I'm not affiliated with them, just a fan of the product. Its not cheap but it is worth it if you ask me.
What solves his problems for his internal customers is just moving to a tested product that works. What he does with the vedor is ancilary to that point if he values his internal customers.
Personally, i would move to another product after testing it and getting a service level agreement from the vendor. Then i would decide if it was worth the effort to end the other contract, get restitution for it not working, or just let them have the money but inform them that he will tell his customers that they are changing products because the previous vendor wasn't fit for their service and with unwilling or unable to make their products fit.
The vendor already proved they aren't capable or willing to satisfy his needs so no use sticking around. I have wasted several thousand dollars leaving a vendor in the past but that choice made it back and more. Do not let someone else' crappy customer service and experience degrade your to the same. Bite the bullet and cut your losses and build your business the way you want it to be.
You see, your problem is that you got neighbors that can see your house. People do things because they can. If sharp wants to because they can, someone will buy it because they can. Now imagine all your neighbors doing a can can dance to thank you for having a square house.
I have yet to this day see an actual tesla anything on the road that wasn't on a trailer being towed by a GM pickup (Tesla emblems on the pickup so it must be a display car or something). I've seen plenty parked, I seen them on TV, I just have never seen anyone driving one in real life- and I travel about 350 miles a day most days.
All i did was prove to you how silly your argument was. If you have a problem with that, you should re-examine your premise. I know for a fact it is wrong and unscientific.
No, the study did not look at having 200 parents. And no, it actually says 2 biological parents is best followed by 2 parents followed by one biological parent followed by no biological parents.
Best is a grade on what was looked at. It is a correct term in the context. It is no different than saying down there meaning lower than where you are and having the ability to go lower and say up there.
Slashdot Mirror
(US) Interestingly, i was late paying a speeding ticket and failed to appear in court. I was out of town and it completely slipped my mind until i returned home. So i promptly paid the citation and called the police department to see if a warrant for arrest had been issued. The thought was to inform them of the payment so i didn't get stopped and arrested later.
I had to argue with this clerk until she finally had her supervisor step in. She kept saying she couldn't tell me because i might hide. Of course the supervisor started with the premis that i couldn't be beligerant and disrespectful to the clerk. After i told him all i wanted was to know if a warrant had been issued for me. He answered that one was and i would need to carry the reciept with me in case i was stopped before it was revoked.
So sometimes, the people working in government might not even know what the law requires of them. Don't give up on the first try.
Then discuss it but do not set up straw men pretending i said something other than what i actually said.
Because if they do not offer this metadata as a product at minimum accessible to the people involved, there is a strong case that it is private and the feds or any government organization accessing would absolutely require a warrant according to the constitution.
This is actually about more that trying to see what the government is accessing.
So slavery without rape is ok then?
Your entire premis is incorect to start with but your attempt to push a specific version seems to paint the wrong inferences. I would think beating a person to the point they died after suffering for several days might be a bit worse than rape but neither is protected, encouraged, or supported by the US constitution as your original statements make.
Also, defending the confederacy was not about slavery directly until the emancipation proclomation. It was about economic freedom and federalism which the US government was trying to undo. Before lincoln forced the issue to gain support to get reelected, slavery was not a target of thecivil war. Sex with slave was never part of the war nore anyintended cause for remedy after the war.
You seem like a nice guy- just a little misguided and a lot confused about action and inaction and the meaning of such.
Wow.. you certainly are clueless.
Not addressing does not mean protecting. It means it was ignored. You not stopping a mugger from grabbing granny's purse does not mean you protected the criminal.
The 3/5th part had absolutely nothing to do with slavery either. It was only a way to limit the tax burden on slave states and prevent excessive representation.
And yes, the emancipation proclamation was constitutional. The abandond and captured property act of 1863 allowed it. Remember, congress has the ability to grant marks and reprisal but as the south was in insurection, they were considered an invading force too. So slaves at the time being property could very well be confiscated and dispised of in any mannor the commander in chief saw fit. It wasn't until after the civil war and the passage of constitution amendments that slaves could no longer be property. The emancipation proclomation did not free all slaves, it only freed them in the areas of rebellion not held by union forces. This allowed slaves to be caputured by the north (when they left the south) and disposed of (like property) according to the executive powers of the president and as commander in chief.
How cute. You make a claim and still refuse to provide any evidence of its validity whatsoever at all and then insist i am trolling when i call you on it.
I thought you may have been on to something with your little list but it would seem you gave up and instead started trying to change the topic to me trolling. It really is pathetic how you cannot provide a single piece of evidence and yet insist the faul lays with me.
Perhaps you are just trolling and do not actually believe anything you say. Its hard to tell but failing in backing your assertions is very unscientific. Shall we agree that you are anti-science? I think that is a safe assumption.
Go ahead and list it. You cannot list anything anti-science else you would have already. This exists all in your head and you know that if you tried, you would have to confront that fact.
If getting you to live in reality is trolling, so be it. But I don't think it is trolling, I think it is pointing out your failures which seem to be deeply rooted in some screwed up ideology. I can see how you think it might be trolling.
No, you pick the policy. You are the one making the claim without showing any evidence (because it doesn't exist). You are the one failing and applying stereotypes in some alter reality version of the universe where political opposition suddenly means anti-science. The onus is on you and you cannot do it without a serious fuckton of distortion.
Yeah but they do not watch 'Big Bang Theory' for the abilities of the characters, they watch for the quirks and laughable moments.
In fact, quite a few plot lines on other sitcom shows evolve or devolve around out of place people with idiosyncrasies. It's sort of a go to for Hollywood and it's ilk.
More like Chuck Barris and his confessions of a dangerous mind.
Completely wrong. They work to stop funding in some cases and to stop the economy from being wrecked by political agents using science as their cover and that is all. You have absolutely no evidence otherwise.
Only if they are deluded and think the way you do. Otherwise, they can view the facts and not assign asinine values that do not exist.
lol.. All you have done is offer rhetoric. I simply applied your own logic and methods as you apply them and it appears you do not like the outcome of that.
"Yep, you certainly are stereotyping. You include everyone who might be associated with the GOP as all hold whatever fantasy opinions you ascribe to them. That is the same as saying all asians are bad drivers.
Yep, just what you did. You even did it in this post.
And here you are stereotyping again and you are doing so based on completely erroneous presumptions.
Why don't you list some of these anti-science policies. I'm more that confident they are politics and not anti-science. Oh and BTW, not funneling money does not mean anti anything. It means not supporting it. It is rarely a "for anything" or "anti-anything" situation in politics unless it is clearly stated. Nowhere is what you claim clearly stated except by other morons and if you paid half as much attention as you pretend to have, you would know that by now.
You know its true, i read it on the internet.
He is wrong constitutionally but right in practice. The president is the head of the executive- the top law enforcement officer of the land with the ability to control the actiond of those under him.
Now that being said, he has a constitution duty to ensure the law is faithfully executed. No one takes him to task over it though. Entering the country illegally is a misdemeanor ( felony on second offense) but it doesn't get enforced. Pot is still a scedule 1 drug which means it cannot even be used as a medicine but it doesn't get enforced. Both those are by the will of the president.
Back to the classified stuff. As the administration is head of all departments not delegated its own branch by the constitution, the president is essentially the top employee of any and all departments except congress and the judicial branches. So is the CIA director could declassify something- the president could also. The same is true for any other function where the law doesn't prohibit disclosure ( he couldn't recite your name, address, and social security number that he obtained from the IRS in his state of the union speech).
You really should drop the sex part, it makes you look like a loon.
Granted the constitution did not bar slavery, but you cannot say with any intelectual honesty that it protected or promoted it. I'm sorry you do not like the constitution or the US founding but that does not give you license to imagine crap and pretend it is true.
I have no beef with you. I simply commented about you lack of intelectual curiosity in dismissing the parents point out of hand which is very antiscientific and your steriotyping a diverse group of people with absolutely no evidence which again is antiscientific and refutes logic and reality. Then i made fun of your crying about that.
You see, no beef at all. Just employing your own tactics but properly.
Most of the people i see bitching about tech companies or any company for that matter who offshores cash to avoid taxes seem to object on the grounds of "fairness" and "governmentbis good except when it gets involved over seas". It typically isn't about cApitalistic financial anything.
I don't see any irony or point being proven.
His buddy doesn't even have to be with the vendor at all. You would be surprised at how many PHBs will make a tech choice based around what one of their friends use and presents as cool.
I used to push (recomend) a groupware/email solution for small businesses i had as clients. It has its own email server without all the hassles of exchange either. It has killer tech support too. Anyways, one of the partners at a lawfirm saw a golf buddy checking his work email on his cell phone. Instead of that partner just getting a phone that could do email (yes, it was that long ago) and using Imap and pushd to sync his email, he demanded we switched to exchange too.
It was funny because he lost his white lists and sender response challenges and was immediately getting swamped with spam until we found a third party spam filter for exchange and even then it didn't work near as well as the other. He had all kinds of complaints but refused to switch back because his cool friend never heard of the other software. Exchange has improved quite a but since then but i still think the other solution offers more in collaboration and spam filtering and is more stable for a business without a dedicated IT.
Btw, the other product is called office logic by lan aces. I'm not affiliated with them, just a fan of the product. Its not cheap but it is worth it if you ask me.
What solves his problems for his internal customers is just moving to a tested product that works. What he does with the vedor is ancilary to that point if he values his internal customers.
Personally, i would move to another product after testing it and getting a service level agreement from the vendor. Then i would decide if it was worth the effort to end the other contract, get restitution for it not working, or just let them have the money but inform them that he will tell his customers that they are changing products because the previous vendor wasn't fit for their service and with unwilling or unable to make their products fit.
The vendor already proved they aren't capable or willing to satisfy his needs so no use sticking around. I have wasted several thousand dollars leaving a vendor in the past but that choice made it back and more. Do not let someone else' crappy customer service and experience degrade your to the same. Bite the bullet and cut your losses and build your business the way you want it to be.
Or logic and reality it would seem.
You see, your problem is that you got neighbors that can see your house. People do things because they can. If sharp wants to because they can, someone will buy it because they can. Now imagine all your neighbors doing a can can dance to thank you for having a square house.
Twitter didn't object to any of them. They objected to not being able to report how many and what type were issued.
I have yet to this day see an actual tesla anything on the road that wasn't on a trailer being towed by a GM pickup (Tesla emblems on the pickup so it must be a display car or something). I've seen plenty parked, I seen them on TV, I just have never seen anyone driving one in real life- and I travel about 350 miles a day most days.
lol.. I see you got friends (sock puppets) with mod points. How sweet. Does that make the little baby feel better now? Will you dry your eyes now?
FFS- lol.
And likewise, nothing about my post suggested that either. The study i linked to did however limit its context making the word "best" a correct fit.
OMG.. you are not going to cry are you?
All i did was prove to you how silly your argument was. If you have a problem with that, you should re-examine your premise. I know for a fact it is wrong and unscientific.
No, the study did not look at having 200 parents. And no, it actually says 2 biological parents is best followed by 2 parents followed by one biological parent followed by no biological parents.
Best is a grade on what was looked at. It is a correct term in the context. It is no different than saying down there meaning lower than where you are and having the ability to go lower and say up there.