I dunno, never bothered me enough to ask. But since this idea is your brainchild, why don't you do the scientific thing and experiment with it and report your findings instead of the religion thing and just asking about it to believe whatever someone tells you that is written in a book.
Nah. We have an all volunteer military and if they weren't quality people we would have a draft to get enough of them in. As it is now, we are turning people away.
The issues with vets has to do a lot with transitions from a very structured life to a very non structured life and wars or experiences from wars they were in. It isn't exactly easy going from knowing you could die at any time to relative safe environments with some of the self preservation behavior resurfacing. This causes conflict in some situations where there should be none and behavior that seems strange in others.
I worked with a guy who would duck slightly when loud sharp noises happen. It was more like a startled twitch but we knew it was reaction from Afghanistan and he really wanted to find cover. He would soon after appear a bit anxious and become short tempered. If it wasn't for a supervisor being a veteran too, he probably would either have lost his job or be well on the way to it. We had several vets there (I don't work there any more) and most were perfectly fine while some had issues all were good people.
Somebody is watching and analyzing the feeds from Facebook as we speak. They do this even when there isn't an election for marketing and in some cases research. But you can bet that a lot of consultants are doing it to figure out how to win someone's campaign and of course the talking heads at the end of the election who like to tell everyone why they did something a certain way.
It may not be readily apparent but it would eventually be caught and outed. Of course it may be ignored as some kook conspiracy claim too.
Your right. Bad publicity can be good "free publicity" in some cases but this guy basically said "look at me, I'm a moron". You can recover from accidents and other misfortunes but pretending to be an idiot is sort of a lot more difficult.
No, Jefferson doesn't make me think of the civil war, the concept of ignoring the constitution did.
As for a smaller government. . That is obvious if we look at people who are pissed that the feds aren't doing what they want it to do. We can convince the smaller number of people in state and local governments a lot easier than people from other states who aren't even elected by them.
Not only that but whoever they work against will have friends in high places and you can about bet laws will be passed designed to harm Facebook the company.
Some of these laws could be data protection where they have to get explicit permission to collect information on a user and explicit permission every time they want to share it with advertising or other partners and that permission cannot condition access to the service. One might be that users are entitled to a portion of the gross revenue generated from the use of the information or that they have to report to each user how much they made from their information.
I had forgotten about the Louisiana purchase. I was thinking of the civil war and of course the new deal.
Anyways, I'm not saying it is strictly followed. But the concept is not dead Take drug laws for instance. Nothing gives the federal government the power to make drugs illegal. They have construed the interstate commerce clause and something else that escapes me at the moment to make it so. But if you do not cross that section of powers the federal government constitutionally has, a state can legalize drugs and there is almost nothing that can be done with it. The same goes for the speed limit and helmet laws. The feds relied on the states because they knew it wouldn't survive a constitutional challenge. So it is there still, just buried under how they try to get around it.
I remember an interview about a supreme court nominee and the senator said it was very important that the nominee be thoroughly vetted because they can not have the supreme court undermining congress and striking laws as unconstitutional all the time. They know what is wrong. They just ensure others who know aren't able to do anything about it.
Scotus works. Albiet it seems a little political at the moment but it works.
The problem is that there is no law in question when you cannot show standing. So there is literally no suit of law to be questioned. This could change if MS prevails or there is some sort of leak of information that allows standing to be demonstrated.
I've heard that argument before but i can never get any reasing for why all constitutional amendments that give power to the federal or state government, or restricts the states or the people in some way, all have a provision giving congress the abilities to make laws on it. If I was to believe you, the best answer to why those amendments alone or even the clauses giving congress powers to make laws over it would be completely unnecessary and just an excuse to use up a surplus of ink.
I know the courts have liberally interpreted existing powers and stretched some like interstate commerce into unrecognizable entities, but i believe the reality of the evidence seems to support other than your statement.
Nah.. it is a matter of standing. You cannot sue unless you can prove you were wronged and entitled to sue. Well you can but it won't last long before getting tossed out.
You and I cannot show we have standing unless someone is willing to violate the law and give us evidence. The company is given evidence about others (the secret nsa letters and gag orders) and can show standing except until now, no one has been able to make a claim. Ms is saying that the process limits their first amendment rights which gives them a claim they can put with the evidence.
I doubt this would happen if Apple didn't fight the government and show Microsoft it wouldn't kill them. In fact I think this might be Microsoft trying to cash in on Apple's good fortune.
No it is not. It is wording that more closely matches well being of the nation than the modern usage of welfare. It is meant to give guidance on the following powers it lists so that a congress couldn't frivilously waste the treasury.
Actually, you will not find anyone prosecuted for murder by the feds unless it happens within their jurisdiction which they are allowed to make laws governing. Murder in your back yard is explicitly a state crime and explicitly prosecuted by the states unless you live on federal property, Indian land, or a territory or it somehow crosses state lines. .
No, the constitution mentions the foregoing powers for the general welfare of the nation. It would be a waste of ink to list anything more than the general welfare if that was true. But seeing how it is very unlikely they had a surplus of ink and thought the constitution was the proper place to use it up, I'm fairly sure the phrase in it's entirety doesn't mean what you think it means.
He is hiding those nude photos he sends to his lovers and that pic of toenail fungus he sent to his sister who is a nurse and told him he wasn't going to die.
Why, does something to hide imply illegality or something ?
This is just a rehash of the tire make the military hold a bake sale for their F16.
Terrorism spending is defense spending and that is actually a constitutional responsibility where health care spending is not. If they stopped spending on defense or terrorism, the funds would either be spent on other constitutional responsibilities or not spent at all. Likely the later due to the fact that we are borrowing the money in the first place.
I'm not opposed to health care spending but we need/should have a constitutional mandate if done on the federal level. So either convince your state or work on a constitutional amendment.
Your scenario only works if the third parties capture enough votes in enough states to get electoral college representatives. It has been a while since that has actually happened.
What is more likely is that the third parties would siphon enough votes in states that are secured or safe for a particular main party and allow the opposite party to win it.
Sometimes a law is not prosecuted because the amount of legally qualified evidence isn't as potent as the evidence or opinions of the evidence people outside the legal system believes. For instance Sally says Bob said X can greatly influence my opinion that John should be prosecuted but Bob is not able to testify and Sally's claims are hearsay making them inadmissible in the trial even though they can direct the investigation.
But I do not disagree with you. I just recognize that what people think may not match what can legally be proven in a court of criminal law. So there will always be outliers giving this impression.
When science and reality makes someone a bigot, I suggest the problem is elsewhere. Perhaps it is with you or this unscientific fantasy of mutilated bodies in order to pretend to change sex.
You are correct. Nixon lied to the people where Clinton lied to the people and a court of law in which he was the defendant. Those situations obviously are not equal.
Those are the oils usually in generic vegetable oils you buy in large bottles at the grocery. Some of those oils are specific to labeling margarine in the U.S. too so if they swapped margarine for butter, it might be why they are mentioned.
It was entirely reasonable because the traffic could be tied to a device within the residence.
But lets assume you are correct. Can i then install a TOR exit node and proceed with a life of cyber crime because it would not be reasonable to search my computers when all the credit cards i exploited digitally points back to me? This is the standard you are pushing for because it would be unreasonable in your scenario to think i was behind the crimes.
Wow. . Where to start. Sex is synonymous with gender - especially in this informal context. You certainly were not confused.
No, I am not saying sex is defined by chromosomes. I'm saying sex or gender can be derived from DNA and no amount of surgery or hormones will change that. Go ahead and check, I specifically pointed to DNA.
Finally, again you are arguing Apple while the argument is about cars.The 99.9 whatever you want to think is completely irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
I dunno, never bothered me enough to ask. But since this idea is your brainchild, why don't you do the scientific thing and experiment with it and report your findings instead of the religion thing and just asking about it to believe whatever someone tells you that is written in a book.
Nah. We have an all volunteer military and if they weren't quality people we would have a draft to get enough of them in. As it is now, we are turning people away.
The issues with vets has to do a lot with transitions from a very structured life to a very non structured life and wars or experiences from wars they were in. It isn't exactly easy going from knowing you could die at any time to relative safe environments with some of the self preservation behavior resurfacing. This causes conflict in some situations where there should be none and behavior that seems strange in others.
I worked with a guy who would duck slightly when loud sharp noises happen. It was more like a startled twitch but we knew it was reaction from Afghanistan and he really wanted to find cover. He would soon after appear a bit anxious and become short tempered. If it wasn't for a supervisor being a veteran too, he probably would either have lost his job or be well on the way to it. We had several vets there (I don't work there any more) and most were perfectly fine while some had issues all were good people.
Somebody is watching and analyzing the feeds from Facebook as we speak. They do this even when there isn't an election for marketing and in some cases research. But you can bet that a lot of consultants are doing it to figure out how to win someone's campaign and of course the talking heads at the end of the election who like to tell everyone why they did something a certain way.
It may not be readily apparent but it would eventually be caught and outed. Of course it may be ignored as some kook conspiracy claim too.
Your right. Bad publicity can be good "free publicity" in some cases but this guy basically said "look at me, I'm a moron". You can recover from accidents and other misfortunes but pretending to be an idiot is sort of a lot more difficult.
No, Jefferson doesn't make me think of the civil war, the concept of ignoring the constitution did.
As for a smaller government. . That is obvious if we look at people who are pissed that the feds aren't doing what they want it to do. We can convince the smaller number of people in state and local governments a lot easier than people from other states who aren't even elected by them.
Obligated? No. Allowed to? Yes.
Believe it or not, some people might want a fascist state. Some might want more than we have now but not complete fascism.
So I guess the question might be "are others obligated to think like you or me"? A lot probably do to some degree but none are obligated.
Free press? Apples or oranges?
Actually this isn't quite the same as an endorsement. They are talking about going a lot further and actually campaigning against someone.
Not only that but whoever they work against will have friends in high places and you can about bet laws will be passed designed to harm Facebook the company.
Some of these laws could be data protection where they have to get explicit permission to collect information on a user and explicit permission every time they want to share it with advertising or other partners and that permission cannot condition access to the service. One might be that users are entitled to a portion of the gross revenue generated from the use of the information or that they have to report to each user how much they made from their information.
It could go south for Facebook easily.
I had forgotten about the Louisiana purchase. I was thinking of the civil war and of course the new deal.
Anyways, I'm not saying it is strictly followed. But the concept is not dead
Take drug laws for instance. Nothing gives the federal government the power to make drugs illegal. They have construed the interstate commerce clause and something else that escapes me at the moment to make it so. But if you do not cross that section of powers the federal government constitutionally has, a state can legalize drugs and there is almost nothing that can be done with it. The same goes for the speed limit and helmet laws. The feds relied on the states because they knew it wouldn't survive a constitutional challenge. So it is there still, just buried under how they try to get around it.
I remember an interview about a supreme court nominee and the senator said it was very important that the nominee be thoroughly vetted because they can not have the supreme court undermining congress and striking laws as unconstitutional all the time. They know what is wrong. They just ensure others who know aren't able to do anything about it.
Scotus works. Albiet it seems a little political at the moment but it works.
The problem is that there is no law in question when you cannot show standing. So there is literally no suit of law to be questioned. This could change if MS prevails or there is some sort of leak of information that allows standing to be demonstrated.
I've heard that argument before but i can never get any reasing for why all constitutional amendments that give power to the federal or state government, or restricts the states or the people in some way, all have a provision giving congress the abilities to make laws on it. If I was to believe you, the best answer to why those amendments alone or even the clauses giving congress powers to make laws over it would be completely unnecessary and just an excuse to use up a surplus of ink.
I know the courts have liberally interpreted existing powers and stretched some like interstate commerce into unrecognizable entities, but i believe the reality of the evidence seems to support other than your statement.
Nah.. it is a matter of standing. You cannot sue unless you can prove you were wronged and entitled to sue. Well you can but it won't last long before getting tossed out.
You and I cannot show we have standing unless someone is willing to violate the law and give us evidence. The company is given evidence about others (the secret nsa letters and gag orders) and can show standing except until now, no one has been able to make a claim. Ms is saying that the process limits their first amendment rights which gives them a claim they can put with the evidence.
I doubt this would happen if Apple didn't fight the government and show Microsoft it wouldn't kill them. In fact I think this might be Microsoft trying to cash in on Apple's good fortune.
Lol.. two different jurisdiction concepts. Perhaps this page will clear itup a bit for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
BTW, this is the principle that allows states to legalize pot even though it is against federal law.
No it is not. It is wording that more closely matches well being of the nation than the modern usage of welfare. It is meant to give guidance on the following powers it lists so that a congress couldn't frivilously waste the treasury.
Actually, you will not find anyone prosecuted for murder by the feds unless it happens within their jurisdiction which they are allowed to make laws governing. Murder in your back yard is explicitly a state crime and explicitly prosecuted by the states unless you live on federal property, Indian land, or a territory or it somehow crosses state lines. .
No, the constitution mentions the foregoing powers for the general welfare of the nation. It would be a waste of ink to list anything more than the general welfare if that was true. But seeing how it is very unlikely they had a surplus of ink and thought the constitution was the proper place to use it up, I'm fairly sure the phrase in it's entirety doesn't mean what you think it means.
He is hiding those nude photos he sends to his lovers and that pic of toenail fungus he sent to his sister who is a nurse and told him he wasn't going to die.
Why, does something to hide imply illegality or something ?
This is just a rehash of the tire make the military hold a bake sale for their F16.
Terrorism spending is defense spending and that is actually a constitutional responsibility where health care spending is not. If they stopped spending on defense or terrorism, the funds would either be spent on other constitutional responsibilities or not spent at all. Likely the later due to the fact that we are borrowing the money in the first place.
I'm not opposed to health care spending but we need/should have a constitutional mandate if done on the federal level. So either convince your state or work on a constitutional amendment.
Your scenario only works if the third parties capture enough votes in enough states to get electoral college representatives. It has been a while since that has actually happened.
What is more likely is that the third parties would siphon enough votes in states that are secured or safe for a particular main party and allow the opposite party to win it.
Sometimes a law is not prosecuted because the amount of legally qualified evidence isn't as potent as the evidence or opinions of the evidence people outside the legal system believes. For instance Sally says Bob said X can greatly influence my opinion that John should be prosecuted but Bob is not able to testify and Sally's claims are hearsay making them inadmissible in the trial even though they can direct the investigation.
But I do not disagree with you. I just recognize that what people think may not match what can legally be proven in a court of criminal law. So there will always be outliers giving this impression.
When science and reality makes someone a bigot, I suggest the problem is elsewhere. Perhaps it is with you or this unscientific fantasy of mutilated bodies in order to pretend to change sex.
You are correct. Nixon lied to the people where Clinton lied to the people and a court of law in which he was the defendant. Those situations obviously are not equal.
Those are the oils usually in generic vegetable oils you buy in large bottles at the grocery. Some of those oils are specific to labeling margarine in the U.S. too so if they swapped margarine for butter, it might be why they are mentioned.
It was entirely reasonable because the traffic could be tied to a device within the residence.
But lets assume you are correct. Can i then install a TOR exit node and proceed with a life of cyber crime because it would not be reasonable to search my computers when all the credit cards i exploited digitally points back to me? This is the standard you are pushing for because it would be unreasonable in your scenario to think i was behind the crimes.
Wow. . Where to start.
Sex is synonymous with gender - especially in this informal context. You certainly were not confused.
No, I am not saying sex is defined by chromosomes. I'm saying sex or gender can be derived from DNA and no amount of surgery or hormones will change that. Go ahead and check, I specifically pointed to DNA.
Finally, again you are arguing Apple while the argument is about cars.The 99.9 whatever you want to think is completely irrelevant.