I am entitled to my tax money protecting the public against anti-trust behavior which is widely documented and widely accepted as detrimental to the health and well-being of society and government. You do not have the right to start a cabal
What gives you that entitlement and what powers allow you to take that right from others?
I am entitled to my government not using my tax money to flood the job market with immigrant workers, illegal, legal, or otherwise, to the point where all job growth since 2000, which has been exactly zero job growth, has gone to those migrant workers.
Again, where does this entitlement come from? Also, do you realize that this is why these tech companies want the h1b visa's. Because they cannot easily be poached by other companies and their salaries are pretty constant.
That is all that's guaranteed here.
Where is it guaranteed?
There's a certain kind of manager who believes that they can piss in the soup and eat their cake too; if you get to piss in the soup, I Do TOO!, and that's where your $15 an hour McDonald entitlement and twinkle factory closings come from.
I am of the opinion that kind of manager needs to be publicly executed, but I'll settle for jailtime, you fucking shill. Reply to This Share
What? Ok, you completely lost me on this one. Are you just picking things out of a couple of newspapers and ranting about them?
Yep... And â" for a car analogy â" if I'm driving, I want to be able to drive on any road with any speed by car can go, and park wherever I see fit. No matter, who built the road or attends to the parking lot.
Except you purchased a car and I sold you a horse and buggy. You see, the problem without net neutrality is that you believe you are purchasing 10 megs of unlimited internet but if the website you are trying to reach is popular enough but doesn't pay your provider additional money or the services you want to use compete with those offered by the ISP's company you do not get 10 megs unlimited access. In some cases, you do not even get the internet because parts of it is blocked (ports). So this is just like a bait and switch.
The government's role is to help competition appear â" by reducing the red-tape around laying down wires and fiber â" not by trying to force the incumbent monopoly to play nice(r).
It is also consumer protection. Just like the government would get involved when you purchase that sports car and I shove a horse and buggy in front of you, if the ISP is purposely restricting speeds or access that they sold you, they are not delivering what they sold you.
Now I'm against government regulating the internet. Eventually evil will come from it if allowed. What is needed for a net neutrality law is something simple stating what the internet is, and that unless addressing a bona fide attack, the ISP cannot limit the speeds or data amounts to anything below what they advertised when selling the service to any customer. And no, up to claims would not get around that because if a limit is placed at 8 megs and you purchased up to10 megs speed, you can never achieve that 10 megs when they intentionally limit it. Congestion likely would because it would be beyond their direct involvement.
A simple law like that, maybe with some penalties and strict instructions to not call a service the internet if it isn't open and available to the definition and the speeds sold, is all that needs to happen. But on that note, I think existing consumer protection laws could be applied if the judges and juries didn't think something magical was happening when they typed WWW or that the internet consisted of only WWW.
I know, tea party is a bad word, but anti-establishment is almost synonymous with it. It finally sound like we might see a democrat who is still actively supporting the working man instead of riding the coat tails of the real democrats who went before him.
And blacks always had the same rights as everyone else on same terms as everyone else: that they needed to be white to have any.
The failure here is the US constitution disallowed distinctions based on race after the 14th amendment. It took some time, but that was affirmed by the US supreme court in Loving v. Virginia circa 1967.
Yes, it is. And frankly, those of us who aren't Nazis are starting to get a bit tired of having this exact same conversation over every single group you wish to take your problems out on. So please follow your fuhrer to the wastebin of history already.
I'm sure you are not talking about me. But please go ahead and make a case if you think you are. I have absolutely no problem with interracial marriage and I have no problem with gay marriage where their state laws allows it. But if you think that because I pointed something truthful out that I'm somehow against all that, you best think again.
The Nazis didn't view the Jews as being people either.
No, they viewed them as inferior people but people none the less. Seriously, look up Eugenics and the T4 program of the Nazis which lead to the holocaust eventually.
The first thing you do when you're looking to oppress some group is to fire up the propaganda machine and dehumanize that group. Hell, it was in the Constitution for a while, a slave's counted as 2/3rds of a person.
You want to make an argument that marriage is for children, I'm FINE with what, as long as a man and a woman won't be able to get married if they'd be unable to produce children. You never see that in any of those "Marriage Protection" laws, and there'd be riots if you did.
Only idiots would make that argument. The state needs a reason for having a law. Marriage used to be controlled completely by the churches until some king in England (I think) got into a power struggle with the church and took it over. In the US, we do things differently, we do not make laws for the sake of having laws. Marriage is about the advancement of society and children or more importantly, who is responsible for them was part of their public interest. Inheritance and communal ownership was some others. Marriage protection laws seem to be based either on religious needs or long standing tradition as a lot of the advancement or protections for society has dwindled away. But we are getting way off topic with this.
You think the Ferguson police force views the citizens there as people? I think they'd randomly stop and harass them a lot less if they did.
I'm sure they view them as people. The problem is almost all cops go through a john Wayne syndrome stage where they think they are the shit and if you do not respect their authority they will learn you different. Most of them grow out of it before it is even noticed, some skip it altogether. The problem with Ferguson is they pay rock bottom wages so about any cop who is good at what they do would move to another city for better pay.
It's awfully hard to do that sort of thing to people. It's also a lot harder to be so terrified of them that faced with an unarmed one (person,) with his hands up, you'd point an assault rifle at them and threaten to kill them.
Wow.. You are just full of misconceptions. Anyways, that seems to be the version of evens from the rabble rousers but not from the some of the witnesses and cops. But it doesn't matter, the truth probably lays somewhere in between the two extremes and we will never know seeing how this has turned political.
Corporations are not people, they are persons. And corporations have been persons since 1819 at least in case law but title 1 section 1 of the US code was created with the intent of including corporations under the legal definition of person. The intent was specifically to include corporations when person was used in federal law.
The only "now" about it is that you know about it and there was a recent court case which likely brought it to your attention.
But all this has nothing to do with what I said. Eugenics was the reasoning behind what the parent was spewing on about not being recognized as a person or not.
As for your tax scam, you would have to check with the states because the feds do no govern marriage but I'm pretty sure someone does not have the same legal definition as you think it might. And determining the sex of a corporation which is "persons" as defined by law might be trivial but until polygamy is legal, I don't think you could take that route.
Where legal definitions are concerned, neither do you. And it still doesn't matter. Current law covers it without even stretching.
And just where is this cyborg act of congress that defines a cyborg? Otherwise, you are making stuff up.
Change the subject, and not answer the real point: current law covers implanted technology in one of two ways, and does so quite thoroughly.
And I discussed a way that it doesn't cover- one in which the human is no longer sentient and is controlled by an AI (like they intended RoboCop and the Universal Soldiers series until one of them accessed the human side and let it through)
nterpreting the equivalent of a mouse signal and replaying memories are not even qualitatively the same thing, and we have already proven, quite conclusively, how inaccurate memory can be, even of one's own actions. The chances of such a system being reliable enough to be admissible are zero within the lifetimes of anyone alive today. And even if such technology were developed, current law still covers it.
And you are a complete idiot of you think this will never change. And how does current law currently cover an AI system implanted within a human who may not be able to express itself any more but otherwise functions like normal and expected?
Once again, and I'll use small words this time:
Either it is an electronic device, and the laws covering the search of computers and cell phones covers it - show probably cause and you get a warrant.
Or it's part of the body, and decades old case law covering forced collection of biometric evidence - DNA, fingerprints, blood samples - covers it. Show probably cause, and you get a warrant.
See above. which is it, a human or a device? That is the point I'm driving.
I guess you could query the battery pack all day long but when you query the part inside the person, well you know where I'm going.
It is really no different then you asking my food where I have been. It's perfectly fine until it is inside me. Then you need a warrant or my permission/willingness. But then again, your food doesn't have any rights. The fridge it is kept in, the stove used to prepare it, the plates it is served on or the house it was stored and consumed in, none of that has any rights. But you do and those rights prevent an open search of them for whatever reason unless certain criteria is secured first (permission, warrant/probable cause).
I don't think it matters. Border drawn in Pakistan and India are under dispute all the time. It was an empire that crumbled in the middle east. Someone had to draw borders and the most competent did.
A cyborg is a cyborg. You do not get to make up a definition in order to limit the discusion of it.
I purposely created a fictional scenarii in order to exempt bias but if you do not think it is theoreticaly possible, i suggest you pay more attention. They are recording brain waves as we speak in order to make prosthetics as transparent as possible. If they can relay and replay those signal to prothetics, it isn't unimaginable that it could be done for the real thing. And yes, science fiction has already done it.
Cannot speak for the op but the one time i was robbed (at gun point) , the police caught them (two people) and they admited to spending the money on drugs. I didn't interogate them at all, i was showed a recording by a victims advocacy representative and watch them admit to it during the questioning.
The interesting thing was the advocate asked my what i thought about them getting sentenced to rehab. I asked if that would be after they served the three years mandatory for the gun spec or before? The could have killed me, or if it was two hours earlier, i eould have been packing myself and i could have killed them or all of us could be dead. Thankfully, no one else was around so the possability of inovcent bystanders getting shot would have been low but still there. I can't belive they wanted to give them a slap on the wrist.
I like how you worked gay marriage in there but you are wrong. Gays always had the same rights to marry that everyone else has had- to marry someone of legal age of the opposite sex who was not closely related to them. In other words, they have always been human. Interracial marriage wasn't about not being human either. It was about genetics and their grade. Look into Eugenics to find more but it was the same line of thinking of nazies and the aryan race.
No it could be possible that a cyborg is not considered human. If a computer or AI is controling its actions, it is probably proper to not consider it human.
The question pops up when the human is no longer sentient. Suppose you had an AI implanted to run through probable scenarios when making najor decisions. This works well for 50 or so years and you pass on or get struck by a car or whatever and become brain dead. Also suppose the AI takes over body functions, draws off your memories and can take commands from other computers. Now are you still human or something else? Do you have the same rights or less because you are not really you?
It would have to be determine on an indevidual basis but a general rule might be that any implanted object is covered under the rights of the person holding it. Something like this would protect an implanted recording chip's data the same way a person's cell phone is. But if the person is braindead and a computer or AI is making them function, then it can be treated as the cell phone or whatever if a person with reduced mebral capacity. Some of them will be deemed incompetent and a ward of the state while some might just need someone appointed as a guardian.
No. I'm saying that when ready and expecting them, the British would lose the battle even with about an 8 to 1 advantage just by organizing some sod busters as was competently shown in the battle of New Orleans. I'm also saying that burning of DC is not all that impressive when you consider the facts. Its sort of like winning the special olympics and thinking you are a world class athlete.
Contrary to popular belief, Obamacare doesn't actually provide healthcare, they are an intermediate between a person and an insurance company that provides a level of coverage for health care.
The fact that many are forced by law to use the PPACA website shouldn't detract from the fact that people are actually consuming the insurance product (although at the end of a gun). So people who purchased insurance or consumed products from the website is what they are talking about.
Why does people who do not like the idea of the government collecting and storing personal data (under threat of law in most cases) that until recently was private and confidential on servers accessible by the internet have to be trolls for the Koch brothers?
And why would that be bad?
Here is the problem that maybe you simply do not get. Storing all your information on the internet is not a good thing. We have fought tooth and nail forever trying to get people to understand that and now the government decides it is best practice. So yes, completely make fools of fools might very well be warranted here. Maybe then it would cause people like you to wake up.
Yup.. Sure did happen just 4 months before the battle of New Orleans.
Like I said, some southern dirt farmers and a handful of regulars turned all that around. Out numbered by more than 2 to 1, they killed 7 times as many British, wounded 8 times as many, and caused almost 6 times as many to run off and go missing.
But you can say the invasion of Washington D.C. was a huge victory for the British but I would suggest that a victory against largely women and children and slaves isn't all that much of a victory (the main forces were on the fronts not lounging in the capitol. Rear Admiral Cockburn was only able to make the invasion because the war with France ended. It was basically a sneak attack. They knew the defenses were weak and planned on attacking Baltimore and Philadelphia too.
In New Orleans, they thought they could over whelm the defenders and found out they were wrong.
Had you actually comprehended what you read, you yourself wouldn't appear to be trolling right now. It happened after the war of 1812 ended but was part of it because no one had told them it ended yet.
That's good and all but only works if the boots on the ground employ it. The problem here is that they abandoned the equipment (presumably in fear for their lives) so a way to do it remotely and after the fact is somewhat desirable.
However, this is probably wishful thinking as whomever we sold the equipment to would likely look for things like that and disable it in case we ever turned on them or something.
How did you get anything remotely resembling that from what I have posted?
First, the entire WWW=666 thing wasn't Israel, it was a christian preacher in the US who gained some support until someone set them strait. Second, I'm pretty sure it all is crazy and it all fails.
Slashdot Mirror
HP made the printer the story was originally printed on before looking the link up and posting it.
What gives you that entitlement and what powers allow you to take that right from others?
Again, where does this entitlement come from? Also, do you realize that this is why these tech companies want the h1b visa's. Because they cannot easily be poached by other companies and their salaries are pretty constant.
Where is it guaranteed?
What? Ok, you completely lost me on this one. Are you just picking things out of a couple of newspapers and ranting about them?
Except you purchased a car and I sold you a horse and buggy. You see, the problem without net neutrality is that you believe you are purchasing 10 megs of unlimited internet but if the website you are trying to reach is popular enough but doesn't pay your provider additional money or the services you want to use compete with those offered by the ISP's company you do not get 10 megs unlimited access. In some cases, you do not even get the internet because parts of it is blocked (ports). So this is just like a bait and switch.
It is also consumer protection. Just like the government would get involved when you purchase that sports car and I shove a horse and buggy in front of you, if the ISP is purposely restricting speeds or access that they sold you, they are not delivering what they sold you.
Now I'm against government regulating the internet. Eventually evil will come from it if allowed. What is needed for a net neutrality law is something simple stating what the internet is, and that unless addressing a bona fide attack, the ISP cannot limit the speeds or data amounts to anything below what they advertised when selling the service to any customer. And no, up to claims would not get around that because if a limit is placed at 8 megs and you purchased up to10 megs speed, you can never achieve that 10 megs when they intentionally limit it. Congestion likely would because it would be beyond their direct involvement.
A simple law like that, maybe with some penalties and strict instructions to not call a service the internet if it isn't open and available to the definition and the speeds sold, is all that needs to happen. But on that note, I think existing consumer protection laws could be applied if the judges and juries didn't think something magical was happening when they typed WWW or that the internet consisted of only WWW.
Finally, it's been around for a while
Well, maybe not a single chip but the concept anyways.
It is about time we got some tea party democrats.
I know, tea party is a bad word, but anti-establishment is almost synonymous with it. It finally sound like we might see a democrat who is still actively supporting the working man instead of riding the coat tails of the real democrats who went before him.
The failure here is the US constitution disallowed distinctions based on race after the 14th amendment. It took some time, but that was affirmed by the US supreme court in Loving v. Virginia circa 1967.
I'm sure you are not talking about me. But please go ahead and make a case if you think you are. I have absolutely no problem with interracial marriage and I have no problem with gay marriage where their state laws allows it. But if you think that because I pointed something truthful out that I'm somehow against all that, you best think again.
No, they viewed them as inferior people but people none the less. Seriously, look up Eugenics and the T4 program of the Nazis which lead to the holocaust eventually.
Any student of history would tell you that the 3/5ths part of the US constitution was not about demonizing the slaves or anyone. It was about deciding how many representative seats a state would have and how much taxes the state would have to pay.
Only idiots would make that argument. The state needs a reason for having a law. Marriage used to be controlled completely by the churches until some king in England (I think) got into a power struggle with the church and took it over. In the US, we do things differently, we do not make laws for the sake of having laws. Marriage is about the advancement of society and children or more importantly, who is responsible for them was part of their public interest. Inheritance and communal ownership was some others. Marriage protection laws seem to be based either on religious needs or long standing tradition as a lot of the advancement or protections for society has dwindled away. But we are getting way off topic with this.
I'm sure they view them as people. The problem is almost all cops go through a john Wayne syndrome stage where they think they are the shit and if you do not respect their authority they will learn you different. Most of them grow out of it before it is even noticed, some skip it altogether. The problem with Ferguson is they pay rock bottom wages so about any cop who is good at what they do would move to another city for better pay.
Wow.. You are just full of misconceptions. Anyways, that seems to be the version of evens from the rabble rousers but not from the some of the witnesses and cops. But it doesn't matter, the truth probably lays somewhere in between the two extremes and we will never know seeing how this has turned political.
Corporations are not people, they are persons. And corporations have been persons since 1819 at least in case law but title 1 section 1 of the US code was created with the intent of including corporations under the legal definition of person. The intent was specifically to include corporations when person was used in federal law.
The only "now" about it is that you know about it and there was a recent court case which likely brought it to your attention.
But all this has nothing to do with what I said. Eugenics was the reasoning behind what the parent was spewing on about not being recognized as a person or not.
As for your tax scam, you would have to check with the states because the feds do no govern marriage but I'm pretty sure someone does not have the same legal definition as you think it might. And determining the sex of a corporation which is "persons" as defined by law might be trivial but until polygamy is legal, I don't think you could take that route.
And just where is this cyborg act of congress that defines a cyborg? Otherwise, you are making stuff up.
And I discussed a way that it doesn't cover- one in which the human is no longer sentient and is controlled by an AI (like they intended RoboCop and the Universal Soldiers series until one of them accessed the human side and let it through)
And you are a complete idiot of you think this will never change. And how does current law currently cover an AI system implanted within a human who may not be able to express itself any more but otherwise functions like normal and expected?
See above. which is it, a human or a device? That is the point I'm driving.
I guess you could query the battery pack all day long but when you query the part inside the person, well you know where I'm going.
It is really no different then you asking my food where I have been. It's perfectly fine until it is inside me. Then you need a warrant or my permission/willingness. But then again, your food doesn't have any rights. The fridge it is kept in, the stove used to prepare it, the plates it is served on or the house it was stored and consumed in, none of that has any rights. But you do and those rights prevent an open search of them for whatever reason unless certain criteria is secured first (permission, warrant/probable cause).
I don't think it matters. Border drawn in Pakistan and India are under dispute all the time. It was an empire that crumbled in the middle east. Someone had to draw borders and the most competent did.
As a native English speaker, albeit a product of public schools, I suffer the same difficulty as you do in regards to this word.
Perhaps the FAA made a mistake and intended to write peons.
That difference changes nothing about what i said.
A cyborg is a cyborg. You do not get to make up a definition in order to limit the discusion of it.
I purposely created a fictional scenarii in order to exempt bias but if you do not think it is theoreticaly possible, i suggest you pay more attention. They are recording brain waves as we speak in order to make prosthetics as transparent as possible. If they can relay and replay those signal to prothetics, it isn't unimaginable that it could be done for the real thing. And yes, science fiction has already done it.
Cannot speak for the op but the one time i was robbed (at gun point) , the police caught them (two people) and they admited to spending the money on drugs. I didn't interogate them at all, i was showed a recording by a victims advocacy representative and watch them admit to it during the questioning.
The interesting thing was the advocate asked my what i thought about them getting sentenced to rehab. I asked if that would be after they served the three years mandatory for the gun spec or before? The could have killed me, or if it was two hours earlier, i eould have been packing myself and i could have killed them or all of us could be dead. Thankfully, no one else was around so the possability of inovcent bystanders getting shot would have been low but still there. I can't belive they wanted to give them a slap on the wrist.
I like how you worked gay marriage in there but you are wrong. Gays always had the same rights to marry that everyone else has had- to marry someone of legal age of the opposite sex who was not closely related to them. In other words, they have always been human. Interracial marriage wasn't about not being human either. It was about genetics and their grade. Look into Eugenics to find more but it was the same line of thinking of nazies and the aryan race.
No it could be possible that a cyborg is not considered human. If a computer or AI is controling its actions, it is probably proper to not consider it human.
The question pops up when the human is no longer sentient. Suppose you had an AI implanted to run through probable scenarios when making najor decisions. This works well for 50 or so years and you pass on or get struck by a car or whatever and become brain dead. Also suppose the AI takes over body functions, draws off your memories and can take commands from other computers. Now are you still human or something else? Do you have the same rights or less because you are not really you?
A cyborg is a human silly.
It would have to be determine on an indevidual basis but a general rule might be that any implanted object is covered under the rights of the person holding it. Something like this would protect an implanted recording chip's data the same way a person's cell phone is. But if the person is braindead and a computer or AI is making them function, then it can be treated as the cell phone or whatever if a person with reduced mebral capacity. Some of them will be deemed incompetent and a ward of the state while some might just need someone appointed as a guardian.
No. I'm saying that when ready and expecting them, the British would lose the battle even with about an 8 to 1 advantage just by organizing some sod busters as was competently shown in the battle of New Orleans. I'm also saying that burning of DC is not all that impressive when you consider the facts. Its sort of like winning the special olympics and thinking you are a world class athlete.
"consumer personal information"
Contrary to popular belief, Obamacare doesn't actually provide healthcare, they are an intermediate between a person and an insurance company that provides a level of coverage for health care.
The fact that many are forced by law to use the PPACA website shouldn't detract from the fact that people are actually consuming the insurance product (although at the end of a gun). So people who purchased insurance or consumed products from the website is what they are talking about.
Why does people who do not like the idea of the government collecting and storing personal data (under threat of law in most cases) that until recently was private and confidential on servers accessible by the internet have to be trolls for the Koch brothers?
And why would that be bad?
Here is the problem that maybe you simply do not get. Storing all your information on the internet is not a good thing. We have fought tooth and nail forever trying to get people to understand that and now the government decides it is best practice. So yes, completely make fools of fools might very well be warranted here. Maybe then it would cause people like you to wake up.
Yup.. Sure did happen just 4 months before the battle of New Orleans.
Like I said, some southern dirt farmers and a handful of regulars turned all that around. Out numbered by more than 2 to 1, they killed 7 times as many British, wounded 8 times as many, and caused almost 6 times as many to run off and go missing.
But you can say the invasion of Washington D.C. was a huge victory for the British but I would suggest that a victory against largely women and children and slaves isn't all that much of a victory (the main forces were on the fronts not lounging in the capitol. Rear Admiral Cockburn was only able to make the invasion because the war with France ended. It was basically a sneak attack. They knew the defenses were weak and planned on attacking Baltimore and Philadelphia too.
In New Orleans, they thought they could over whelm the defenders and found out they were wrong.
I see you completely ignored the battle of New Orleans like I specifically spelled out as my qualifier.
Had you actually comprehended what you read, you yourself wouldn't appear to be trolling right now. It happened after the war of 1812 ended but was part of it because no one had told them it ended yet.
That's good and all but only works if the boots on the ground employ it. The problem here is that they abandoned the equipment (presumably in fear for their lives) so a way to do it remotely and after the fact is somewhat desirable.
However, this is probably wishful thinking as whomever we sold the equipment to would likely look for things like that and disable it in case we ever turned on them or something.
How did you get anything remotely resembling that from what I have posted?
First, the entire WWW=666 thing wasn't Israel, it was a christian preacher in the US who gained some support until someone set them strait. Second, I'm pretty sure it all is crazy and it all fails.