Sure, and whoever suspected him of about to be committing a crime is free to follow him to observe his actions.
Suspicion kind of works that way. When someone who is new to an area and does things that look suspicious, do not be surprised if someone follows and watches them. It might be different if you lived there for the last 30 years or something.
I'm not sure that following someone or that being followed by someone is just cause for using for hand to hand combat of shooting someone. If someone resorts to that, it would seem to me that they were trying to intentionally harm someone or teach them a lesson.
Apples and apples. If you want to convince me something exists, you'd better point to some evidence and not just say "trust me."
Who wants to convince you of anything? You are not claiming the problem is with someone telling you to believe something, you are claiming the problem is that they believe something so you must demean them.
As I said, what is your problem with them holding a belief that isn't identical to yours, is it that it may turn out to be true one day?
I don't give a shit what you believe. Just don't expect me to take your word for it without a good reason. Don't expect me to live my life according to what you believe.
That's not what you were saying a few posts earlier. that's not what you start this post off with. You seem to care deeply that there are people out there who do not believe exactly like you do.
All those things were demonstrated practically, so it's not like the Wright brothers went to the press and said "We really did fly! Take our word for it" without showing the results. Yes, they had faith that it was possible and pursued it - but once it was demonstrated, there could be no denying that heavier-than-air machines could fly. Evidence was the key.
Are you really that dense? Did the wright brothers wake up one day and discover that they could fly and life as we know it was automagically created? You are missing the part that before they could demonstrate it was possible, plenty of people thought and believed it was possible. The Wright brothers weren't the ones to invent flying, they were the ones to actually succeed in doing it. Your approach of you have to show me or it's all bullshit is exactly the opposite of what is needed for scientific discovery.
I would welcome that, but until Jesus actually shows up again I don't see any reason to believe people who say he's going to.
You do not have to believe in Jesus, just don't actively work at stopping others from doing so. Don't denigrate others for doing so. And of you are going to claim something is impossible or bullshit, at least base it on reality and provable science and not on contrived logic that used the exact same unsupported beliefs as they do.
I'm not sure about Google News, but most Google search results will list some returns in a shaded area at the top of the lists. They are results paid to be placed in the results or advertised with the results of a search for certain Keywords.
They are generally non-intrusive and in my experience, generally what I was looking for anyways. If they aren't, you just scroll down a bit to the third or fourth listing on the results and you are in the unshaded area with pure results.
I saw surveillance cam footage of a cop in a nearby village (small town in the US)- off duty, breaking the antenna off a car in a parking lot and using it to beat his wife with it until she was on the ground in a fetal position screaming for help. I do not think she was seriously hurt outside some welts in various places. The day after this happened, someone was sentenced to 5 years in prison for domestic violence for telling his spouse he would kill her if she ever returned to his home again. He then shoved her out the door and she fell obtaining a few bruises. This supposedly happened after he caught her cheating with someone else moments earlier. The other guy ran and wasn't involved in the domestic violence.
The cop, he was sentenced to time served (over night) and had to complete an anger management course with 100 hours community service.
Another instance that recently happened which baffles the mind. An under aged woman (drinking age) called a friend who was a county sheriff claiming she was drunk and needed a ride home. He went to a bar outside of town and met her. Nothing has been said about if she was drinking at the bar or pulled into it after trying to drive from somewhere else and realizing she was to intoxicated to drive. The sheriff deputy went to get her, convinced her to follow him back to his house, then started making sexual advances towards her. The woman decided she wanted nothing of it and tried to leave. The Deputy wouldn't let her leave, she escaped and went outside. He subdued her using choke-holds and and various other aspects of his training even kicking and punching her. A few people saw this happening while exiting a near by bar and went over to prevent what they described as a rape in progress according to the 911 call. The deputy was arrested under suspicion of kidnapping, sexual assault, criminal assault, and something else by the town police. 3 weeks later, all charges against him had been dropped and he resigned from the Sheriff's department. 2 weeks after that, he was hired as a police deputy in a neighboring town and rumor has it that his pay actually increased in the process.
It seems like the justice system is really code for Just us as far as they are concerned.
3 phase 240 is offered in the US mostly for commercial purposes. A lot of commercial grade restaurant equipment is specifically designed to use 3 phase 240v power. Most industrial machines use 3 phase 208v or 240v or greater power.
I have heard of apartment buildings that have 3 phase 240 coming in, but it is branched to a metered 120v going to the apartments except for the heating and cooling systems. At least that is the explanation I got when I inquired to how and or why a friend's landlord would pay his heating and cooling, but not the rest of the electrical use. The efficiencies qualified the unit for some sort of tax programs and on 3 phase power, the extra cost was relatively low to him (pass on in the rent payment which was still competitive with other apartments in the area).
However, if you are Atheist, then why does it matter if someone believes in something they cannot prove? Science was full of this in the past (machines can let man fly) and probably still is. It has led to great discoveries that are part of common knowledge today (electrical energy for instance and the ability of programmable logic circuits or transistors). Are you afraid they might one day be able to prove their beliefs to be true or useful or something?
If he's undetectable, he's not there. It's like the teapot in orbit around alpha centauri.
Do you not understand the concept of supernatural or something? Saying he is not there because he is undetectable to you is not different then the person saying he or it is there because it is detectable to them. Saying that is no different then the concept of a God being everywhere at the same time.
If you acknowledge it is unprovable, then you acknowledge it is worng.
And that is where logic and scientific method simply escapes you. Something being unprovable only means the ability to prove it doesn't exist not that the claim is wrong. Claiming it is wrong is doing nothing more then what the person that believes in a God is doing and by extension, makes you the exact same thing as you despise.
You could as well believe in pixies. That's the argument I am making. Religion is believing in pixies.
And this is your problem, you have absolutely no way of supporting that claim. Instead, you are insisting that things are magically how you say because of the same claim to logic you dismiss. Religion is not believing in pixies, even the most ignorant idiot knows completely well that it is the belief in something specific. You calling it pixies does not make it so. At least the religious have a little more supporting evidence, although largely anecdotal and not empirical, in their beliefs. You on the other hand have your mental masturbation to thank for your cognitive dissidence.
Look, if you chose to believe the earth is flat, or something equivalent, you are an idiot
And this has to do with what exactly? I mean seriously, no one believes the world is flat. It has been describes as flat metaphorically to convey concepts. But even in the common era that we like to say people believed the world was flat, they knew it wasn't. But to further add insult to your intelligence, you are attempting to take something known and testable and compare it to something untestable in order to support your belief system. I laugh at how religiously inaccurate your comparison it. This is getting rich watching you attempt to defend your own unsupported beliefs in attempts of discrediting others unsupported beliefs. Well, it is either just as much willful ignorance for you to put your unsupported beliefs those of others or your entire argument is as you say, bullshit.
And I am not the same as religious people, as I do not chose to willfully beleive crap that is obviously not true.
But you are, you are using fallacies in your arguments, you are insisting your unsupported claims are true while theirs are false. You are making statements of opinions as fact. You are identical to the religious people. It is clearly obvious to anyone on the outside looking in. You are just so absorbed in your own belief system that you cannot see it.
You have no argument. You saying that I am not an atheist is relly funny. Perhaps you don't believe that god shit yourself?
And here you are with another unsupported claim. Go back and look to see where I said I was religious or believed in God. Upon an accurate examination, you will find that I have never said that. What you will find is me saying that your arguments are crap with no supporting evidence and is not any more valid then those made by religious people. Go ahead, look at the record. I dare you.
People who willfully believe bullshit insult themselves. And please write English.
I can understand your lack of ability to comprehend something written. Your grammar and spelling is an indication of your intelligence after all and you have made that more then established during this exchange. But rest assured grasshopper, that was English.. Maybe not as plain as you would like, but it isn't foreign to Engl
I completely understand your concerns. However, the law was written at a time when online education wasn't nearly the thing we have today. The law says something about making available to citizens of the state not having to leave the state to complete the course offerings.
The legislature has also found and declares that this same policy applies to any private and public postsecondary educational institution located in another state or country which offers or makes available to a Minnesota resident any course, program or educational activity which does not require the leaving of the state for its completion.
20 years ago or more (1975 is when another said the law originated), the situation we find ourselves in today was probably not even close to the capabilities of the time without actually falling into that category because the ability to get information was so different then. It was more then likely that the institution would have actually advertised in the state. This is probably one of the best cases of where a law actually needs updated to keep up with different tech advantages we have now.
It probably is compatible with the first amendment for a couple of reasons. First, it requires registration of all schools, not just some. Second, it really isn't much different then the states requiring teachers and lawyers and doctors and plumbers, and whatever else to be registered or licensed through the state.
But then again, there is no reason not to test the issue, it might not be after all. Unfortunately, I think in the long run, it might be cheaper to register then to fight it. Especially if it winds it's way to higher and higher courts.
If the school operates in MN, I would say yes, an online school in China would need to register.
The biggest difference might be the likelihood of enforcement. The school in china will likely never be in the reach to collect any penalties. The schools in America will be because the other states will honor MN's legal process when they come looking for them.
Minnesota doesn't need a great firewall. They need to either update their laws, or the schools operating in the state need to register. It isn't that hard of a concept and Schools generally are not third grade dropouts too illiterate to follow the procedures. They can either comply with the law, loby to get it changed, or ignore it and do a disclaimer claiming they do not operate within the state and let students enroll anyways. The law carries no penalties for the students going to the schools not registered.
That's a good point. I suggest they attempt to argue that to the state and see for sure. There is a waiver program for some of the requirements built into the law. I think the intent of the law is to weed out scams and diploma mills so they should be willing to either work with online schools or perhaps lobby the state legislature for a change.
Well, I don't think Khan offers an organized course do they? Khan if I understand it correctly, is more like Youtube with study sheets anyone can use for any reason. The school in question here actually seems to have course work.
Either way, if I'm wrong on that, yes, they would require Khan to register or not participate in the state.
While I do agree that the laws need to be changed and updated, I think your assignment of malice is completely unwarranted. The institute meets the legal definition and is subject to the law. They administration had no choice but to follow the law and the rules set in front of them. I'm sure of they ignored it, everyone would be pissed, especially if the state started ignoring the laws for large corporations.
They are obviosly not less of a person. But thanking smoeone that isn't there is, well, name it however you want.
You obviously do not know what you are talking about. First, the someone could be there completely undetectable to you. Second, that someone doesn't need to be there. Why, because the entire premise of that someone is that it is a God and not subject to the constraints your imagination can place on it. In other words, they are supernatural. But ti doesn't really matter what you think, it doesn't matter what I think, what matters is what the person dieing thinks and how they cope with it. It is their life, not yours.
It is your brain, you can believe in pixies if you want. I was just commenting that the whole narrative behind most religions is obviously bullshit. You cannot counter that, so I guess my point stands.
There you again, making statements that you absolutely cannot back up or support in an attempt denigrate someone for the same. The hypocrisy in you is strong.
You denigrate yourselves by believing in bullshit without any need. By barking up trees that aren't even there.
No, it is an active pursuit by you. You are claiming all sorts of unprovable shit in your attempt to claim their unprovable shit is wrong. You are them. You are no different then them. Except instead of them saying you are going to hell, which if you really were atheist, shouldn't bother you because you wouldn't believe in Hell by extension of not believing in a god, for some reason, you have to interject and call people names and attempt to insult them while claiming your own unprovable crap. Well, I'm sorry that people using the exact same logic process as you have demonstrated are willfully ignorant and lesser people in your eyes. Now stand in front of a mirror and think about how similar you are to them. From the outside looking in, the only difference I can see is the amount of spite you try to bring to the table.
I don't tell people how to live their lives. You have a right to believe whatever you want, but you do not have a right to be isolated from my opinion on the matter when debating the issue. I never speak about this unprovoked.
Someone on here used to have a sig that said something like the speed of light is faster then the speed of sound. That's why people seem so bright and warm until they open their mouth.
Your opinion is not the problem, your attempts to insult people while doing the exact same thing they do according to the problem you find with them is. Are you even capable of thinking the logic of your argument through? You are a hypocrite looking to troll. and yes, it does appear you injected into this convo without being provoked. I can tell from your grammar that you aren't any of the named monikers who posted before the AC started posting.
Lol.. That is just a limitation of liability clause to come in line with the law of the state. You agree to those terms and if you stay in Minnesota, you are the one breaking the law (if it can even be turned onto the consumer) not the school.
No they are not. They are saying that any post secondary education institutions offering courses within the state has to register with the state.
But Ms. Grimes said the law the letters refer to isnâ(TM)t new. âoeThis has been a longtime requirement in Minnesota (at least 20 years) and applies to online and brick-and-mortar postsecondary institutions that offer instruction to Minnesota residents as part of our overall responsibility to provide consumer protection for students,â she wrote in an e-mail.
The law says (**PDF warning) "All schools located within Minnesota and all schools located outside Minnesota which offer degree programs or courses within Minnesota shall register annually with the office."
It clearly says courses. So all they need to do is simply register with the state to comply. It's a consumer protection law that is supposed to weed out scams. It doesn't seem to make a distinction between charging to attend or not.
but if Google played ball like that (with a pay wall), at least the French government couldn't claim Google was abusing their de facto monopoly status being the largest search provider and all to bully politicians. Perhaps the time and money would be more of an insurance policy against other claims on Google that seems to be present already in this story's conversation.
Everyone knows God created diseases, everyone knows bad things happen to good people. Everyone knows there are evil people out there.
What makes the difference to you if someone dieing from a horrific experience thanks God for anything? I mean first, why is it any of your business how someone chooses to spend their last breath? 20 years ago, aids was a death sentence and people tanked god all the time. They thanked God for the life they had that was good, they thanked God for ending the life that was suffering, they thanked God for any reason they wanted to. Just because you wouldn't does not mean anyone is ignorant or less of a person. It just means you wouldn't do it,
I simply do not understand why you evangelical atheist claim to hate religious people because they push their faith on you, but insist people live and think exactly like you do or want them to or you are somehow justified in denigrating them. Pot, meet kettle.
I don't really think law enforcement requests should be notified- if the investigation points to no wrong doing, the information is destroyed and not retained by law enforcement. On the other hand, cold cases can be solved because investigations have access to new technology later and notifying someone they were investigated may be enough to remove this future evidence. It's like that guy in Florida who killed people. He put a surgical tube full of someone else blood in his arm and assisted people wanting blood for DNA evidence in getting the blood out of it. He knew he was hit and took steps to get around it. But your imagination is as good as mine or anyone else in what we will be able to do forensically in the future.
For telecom data, sure. For automatic fines, maybe if there is signs of gross negligence or something, sure. There are plenty of 0 day flaws or exploits out there and we shouldn't really be neglecting due process.
All I know is doing nothing because you can't have it all is still nothing. at least if you know your personal information was disclosed by company X 2 months before your credit report shows a maxed out credit card with a 20k limit, you can go after company X for the trouble it causes.
Generally, in theory at least, authorized data transfers wouldn't be using it to commit identity theft or fraud or other damaging acts. However, notifying customers of a data breach by unauthorized entities, could allow those customers to take steps to monitor their credit and or make the company liable if something damaging happens from it.
Actually, we get taught that the US government decided that the debt owed to the french was to the crown and royalty they killed and replaced during the French revolution. We stopped paying that debt back then because the New French government was not the same France that helped us out. We treated the new France and an entirely different country. It was the main cause for the War of 1812 where the french got their asses severely kicked by a couple of dirt farmers at New Orleans.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, and whoever suspected him of about to be committing a crime is free to follow him to observe his actions.
Suspicion kind of works that way. When someone who is new to an area and does things that look suspicious, do not be surprised if someone follows and watches them. It might be different if you lived there for the last 30 years or something.
Breaking no laws does not suspend any suspicion of intent of breaking laws.
I'm not sure that following someone or that being followed by someone is just cause for using for hand to hand combat of shooting someone. If someone resorts to that, it would seem to me that they were trying to intentionally harm someone or teach them a lesson.
I have little sympathy for either.
Who wants to convince you of anything? You are not claiming the problem is with someone telling you to believe something, you are claiming the problem is that they believe something so you must demean them.
As I said, what is your problem with them holding a belief that isn't identical to yours, is it that it may turn out to be true one day?
That's not what you were saying a few posts earlier. that's not what you start this post off with. You seem to care deeply that there are people out there who do not believe exactly like you do.
Are you really that dense? Did the wright brothers wake up one day and discover that they could fly and life as we know it was automagically created? You are missing the part that before they could demonstrate it was possible, plenty of people thought and believed it was possible. The Wright brothers weren't the ones to invent flying, they were the ones to actually succeed in doing it. Your approach of you have to show me or it's all bullshit is exactly the opposite of what is needed for scientific discovery.
You do not have to believe in Jesus, just don't actively work at stopping others from doing so. Don't denigrate others for doing so. And of you are going to claim something is impossible or bullshit, at least base it on reality and provable science and not on contrived logic that used the exact same unsupported beliefs as they do.
I'm not sure about Google News, but most Google search results will list some returns in a shaded area at the top of the lists. They are results paid to be placed in the results or advertised with the results of a search for certain Keywords.
They are generally non-intrusive and in my experience, generally what I was looking for anyways. If they aren't, you just scroll down a bit to the third or fourth listing on the results and you are in the unshaded area with pure results.
I agree. Mod this fucker up.
I saw surveillance cam footage of a cop in a nearby village (small town in the US)- off duty, breaking the antenna off a car in a parking lot and using it to beat his wife with it until she was on the ground in a fetal position screaming for help. I do not think she was seriously hurt outside some welts in various places. The day after this happened, someone was sentenced to 5 years in prison for domestic violence for telling his spouse he would kill her if she ever returned to his home again. He then shoved her out the door and she fell obtaining a few bruises. This supposedly happened after he caught her cheating with someone else moments earlier. The other guy ran and wasn't involved in the domestic violence.
The cop, he was sentenced to time served (over night) and had to complete an anger management course with 100 hours community service.
Another instance that recently happened which baffles the mind. An under aged woman (drinking age) called a friend who was a county sheriff claiming she was drunk and needed a ride home. He went to a bar outside of town and met her. Nothing has been said about if she was drinking at the bar or pulled into it after trying to drive from somewhere else and realizing she was to intoxicated to drive. The sheriff deputy went to get her, convinced her to follow him back to his house, then started making sexual advances towards her. The woman decided she wanted nothing of it and tried to leave. The Deputy wouldn't let her leave, she escaped and went outside. He subdued her using choke-holds and and various other aspects of his training even kicking and punching her. A few people saw this happening while exiting a near by bar and went over to prevent what they described as a rape in progress according to the 911 call. The deputy was arrested under suspicion of kidnapping, sexual assault, criminal assault, and something else by the town police. 3 weeks later, all charges against him had been dropped and he resigned from the Sheriff's department. 2 weeks after that, he was hired as a police deputy in a neighboring town and rumor has it that his pay actually increased in the process.
It seems like the justice system is really code for Just us as far as they are concerned.
3 phase 240 is offered in the US mostly for commercial purposes. A lot of commercial grade restaurant equipment is specifically designed to use 3 phase 240v power. Most industrial machines use 3 phase 208v or 240v or greater power.
I have heard of apartment buildings that have 3 phase 240 coming in, but it is branched to a metered 120v going to the apartments except for the heating and cooling systems. At least that is the explanation I got when I inquired to how and or why a friend's landlord would pay his heating and cooling, but not the rest of the electrical use. The efficiencies qualified the unit for some sort of tax programs and on 3 phase power, the extra cost was relatively low to him (pass on in the rent payment which was still competitive with other apartments in the area).
Not really, it is more like an extension cord for the HDMI standard.
Oh wait, you are probably right. Maybe file for another patent with the terms "on a phone" to ensure you have the market locked up.
Apples and oranges.
However, if you are Atheist, then why does it matter if someone believes in something they cannot prove? Science was full of this in the past (machines can let man fly) and probably still is. It has led to great discoveries that are part of common knowledge today (electrical energy for instance and the ability of programmable logic circuits or transistors). Are you afraid they might one day be able to prove their beliefs to be true or useful or something?
Do you not understand the concept of supernatural or something? Saying he is not there because he is undetectable to you is not different then the person saying he or it is there because it is detectable to them. Saying that is no different then the concept of a God being everywhere at the same time.
And that is where logic and scientific method simply escapes you. Something being unprovable only means the ability to prove it doesn't exist not that the claim is wrong. Claiming it is wrong is doing nothing more then what the person that believes in a God is doing and by extension, makes you the exact same thing as you despise.
And this is your problem, you have absolutely no way of supporting that claim. Instead, you are insisting that things are magically how you say because of the same claim to logic you dismiss. Religion is not believing in pixies, even the most ignorant idiot knows completely well that it is the belief in something specific. You calling it pixies does not make it so. At least the religious have a little more supporting evidence, although largely anecdotal and not empirical, in their beliefs. You on the other hand have your mental masturbation to thank for your cognitive dissidence.
And this has to do with what exactly? I mean seriously, no one believes the world is flat. It has been describes as flat metaphorically to convey concepts. But even in the common era that we like to say people believed the world was flat, they knew it wasn't. But to further add insult to your intelligence, you are attempting to take something known and testable and compare it to something untestable in order to support your belief system. I laugh at how religiously inaccurate your comparison it. This is getting rich watching you attempt to defend your own unsupported beliefs in attempts of discrediting others unsupported beliefs. Well, it is either just as much willful ignorance for you to put your unsupported beliefs those of others or your entire argument is as you say, bullshit.
But you are, you are using fallacies in your arguments, you are insisting your unsupported claims are true while theirs are false. You are making statements of opinions as fact. You are identical to the religious people. It is clearly obvious to anyone on the outside looking in. You are just so absorbed in your own belief system that you cannot see it.
And here you are with another unsupported claim. Go back and look to see where I said I was religious or believed in God. Upon an accurate examination, you will find that I have never said that. What you will find is me saying that your arguments are crap with no supporting evidence and is not any more valid then those made by religious people. Go ahead, look at the record. I dare you.
I can understand your lack of ability to comprehend something written. Your grammar and spelling is an indication of your intelligence after all and you have made that more then established during this exchange. But rest assured grasshopper, that was English.. Maybe not as plain as you would like, but it isn't foreign to Engl
I completely understand your concerns. However, the law was written at a time when online education wasn't nearly the thing we have today. The law says something about making available to citizens of the state not having to leave the state to complete the course offerings.
20 years ago or more (1975 is when another said the law originated), the situation we find ourselves in today was probably not even close to the capabilities of the time without actually falling into that category because the ability to get information was so different then. It was more then likely that the institution would have actually advertised in the state. This is probably one of the best cases of where a law actually needs updated to keep up with different tech advantages we have now.
It probably is compatible with the first amendment for a couple of reasons. First, it requires registration of all schools, not just some. Second, it really isn't much different then the states requiring teachers and lawyers and doctors and plumbers, and whatever else to be registered or licensed through the state.
But then again, there is no reason not to test the issue, it might not be after all. Unfortunately, I think in the long run, it might be cheaper to register then to fight it. Especially if it winds it's way to higher and higher courts.
If the school operates in MN, I would say yes, an online school in China would need to register.
The biggest difference might be the likelihood of enforcement. The school in china will likely never be in the reach to collect any penalties. The schools in America will be because the other states will honor MN's legal process when they come looking for them.
Minnesota doesn't need a great firewall. They need to either update their laws, or the schools operating in the state need to register. It isn't that hard of a concept and Schools generally are not third grade dropouts too illiterate to follow the procedures. They can either comply with the law, loby to get it changed, or ignore it and do a disclaimer claiming they do not operate within the state and let students enroll anyways. The law carries no penalties for the students going to the schools not registered.
That's a good point. I suggest they attempt to argue that to the state and see for sure. There is a waiver program for some of the requirements built into the law. I think the intent of the law is to weed out scams and diploma mills so they should be willing to either work with online schools or perhaps lobby the state legislature for a change.
Well, I don't think Khan offers an organized course do they? Khan if I understand it correctly, is more like Youtube with study sheets anyone can use for any reason. The school in question here actually seems to have course work.
Either way, if I'm wrong on that, yes, they would require Khan to register or not participate in the state.
While I do agree that the laws need to be changed and updated, I think your assignment of malice is completely unwarranted. The institute meets the legal definition and is subject to the law. They administration had no choice but to follow the law and the rules set in front of them. I'm sure of they ignored it, everyone would be pissed, especially if the state started ignoring the laws for large corporations.
You obviously do not know what you are talking about. First, the someone could be there completely undetectable to you. Second, that someone doesn't need to be there. Why, because the entire premise of that someone is that it is a God and not subject to the constraints your imagination can place on it. In other words, they are supernatural. But ti doesn't really matter what you think, it doesn't matter what I think, what matters is what the person dieing thinks and how they cope with it. It is their life, not yours.
There you again, making statements that you absolutely cannot back up or support in an attempt denigrate someone for the same. The hypocrisy in you is strong.
No, it is an active pursuit by you. You are claiming all sorts of unprovable shit in your attempt to claim their unprovable shit is wrong. You are them. You are no different then them. Except instead of them saying you are going to hell, which if you really were atheist, shouldn't bother you because you wouldn't believe in Hell by extension of not believing in a god, for some reason, you have to interject and call people names and attempt to insult them while claiming your own unprovable crap. Well, I'm sorry that people using the exact same logic process as you have demonstrated are willfully ignorant and lesser people in your eyes. Now stand in front of a mirror and think about how similar you are to them. From the outside looking in, the only difference I can see is the amount of spite you try to bring to the table.
Someone on here used to have a sig that said something like the speed of light is faster then the speed of sound. That's why people seem so bright and warm until they open their mouth.
Your opinion is not the problem, your attempts to insult people while doing the exact same thing they do according to the problem you find with them is. Are you even capable of thinking the logic of your argument through? You are a hypocrite looking to troll. and yes, it does appear you injected into this convo without being provoked. I can tell from your grammar that you aren't any of the named monikers who posted before the AC started posting.
Lol.. That is just a limitation of liability clause to come in line with the law of the state. You agree to those terms and if you stay in Minnesota, you are the one breaking the law (if it can even be turned onto the consumer) not the school.
No they are not. They are saying that any post secondary education institutions offering courses within the state has to register with the state.
The law says (**PDF warning) "All schools located within Minnesota and all schools located outside Minnesota which offer degree programs or courses within Minnesota shall register annually with the office."
It clearly says courses. So all they need to do is simply register with the state to comply. It's a consumer protection law that is supposed to weed out scams. It doesn't seem to make a distinction between charging to attend or not.
I understand what you are saying,
but if Google played ball like that (with a pay wall), at least the French government couldn't claim Google was abusing their de facto monopoly status being the largest search provider and all to bully politicians. Perhaps the time and money would be more of an insurance policy against other claims on Google that seems to be present already in this story's conversation.
WTF are you talking about?
Everyone knows God created diseases, everyone knows bad things happen to good people. Everyone knows there are evil people out there.
What makes the difference to you if someone dieing from a horrific experience thanks God for anything? I mean first, why is it any of your business how someone chooses to spend their last breath? 20 years ago, aids was a death sentence and people tanked god all the time. They thanked God for the life they had that was good, they thanked God for ending the life that was suffering, they thanked God for any reason they wanted to. Just because you wouldn't does not mean anyone is ignorant or less of a person. It just means you wouldn't do it,
I simply do not understand why you evangelical atheist claim to hate religious people because they push their faith on you, but insist people live and think exactly like you do or want them to or you are somehow justified in denigrating them. Pot, meet kettle.
You are correct. I was conflating the quasi war that happened shortly before it.
I do not think that all or nothing is any better.
I don't really think law enforcement requests should be notified- if the investigation points to no wrong doing, the information is destroyed and not retained by law enforcement. On the other hand, cold cases can be solved because investigations have access to new technology later and notifying someone they were investigated may be enough to remove this future evidence. It's like that guy in Florida who killed people. He put a surgical tube full of someone else blood in his arm and assisted people wanting blood for DNA evidence in getting the blood out of it. He knew he was hit and took steps to get around it. But your imagination is as good as mine or anyone else in what we will be able to do forensically in the future.
For telecom data, sure. For automatic fines, maybe if there is signs of gross negligence or something, sure. There are plenty of 0 day flaws or exploits out there and we shouldn't really be neglecting due process.
All I know is doing nothing because you can't have it all is still nothing. at least if you know your personal information was disclosed by company X 2 months before your credit report shows a maxed out credit card with a 20k limit, you can go after company X for the trouble it causes.
Generally, in theory at least, authorized data transfers wouldn't be using it to commit identity theft or fraud or other damaging acts. However, notifying customers of a data breach by unauthorized entities, could allow those customers to take steps to monitor their credit and or make the company liable if something damaging happens from it.
Are you saying you like Big Butts?
Actually, we get taught that the US government decided that the debt owed to the french was to the crown and royalty they killed and replaced during the French revolution. We stopped paying that debt back then because the New French government was not the same France that helped us out. We treated the new France and an entirely different country. It was the main cause for the War of 1812 where the french got their asses severely kicked by a couple of dirt farmers at New Orleans.