The bible is not a "everyone follow this exactly" book. For the most part, it is a history of the religion to understand the different covenants God made with man. You can have completely contradicting passages that do not contradict because they are under different covenants. It is when the new or latest covenant repeats something that you can look back and understand how it was before in order to understand how it means in the present.
The installer is not released under the gpl. That is where the supposed code dispute came from. It's a bit difficult to follow as they keep changing posts and crap. But my understanding was that because they used the same USB library that is freely available in some tool kit under a non-gpl license to format flashdrives, that one team assumed they stole their code, changed some file names and the splash image and passed it off as their own. They are now claiming that was a mistake.
Xbian and raspbmc are competing distributions of operating systems for the rasbery pi.(you can google rasbery pi).
Well, I say operating systems but they seem to be more or less flash utilities and scripts to change some settings and load debian linux from a debian repository somewhere. The quip seems to be over the installer program in which something was claimed to have been copied without attribution to the copyright holders or provisions in the GPL for redistributing the source.
Both projects seem to be run by kids which is really evident if you caught any of the back and forth banter over the last couple of days. I'm not really sure why this makes the front page of slashdot. Maybe I borked some settings or something.
So you're opposed to using objective rules like "provider performed and documented X, so they're entitled to bill for X" in favor of "provider performed and documented X, but that doesn't feel right". Down that path lies insanity.
I'm not sure it is a matter of X being the same though. If the situation is as the GP presented and X is a band aid, then the method of service would be different so it would actually be x-1 verses x+1 depending on the method of service.
Even if they met all the requirement to bill as emergency band-aid application, you still feel it's fraudulent? You're not a fan of rule-of-law, are you.
I'm not the GP but I would say it is fraudulent insomuch that the billing could be that much absorbingly higher then the actual costs.I'm not sure how a band aid or putting a band aid on a patient could costs so much and be supported by law or normal process. I don't know if the spread is really that much or if it was something he pulled out of the air to make a point. But if they billing is able to be even close to that kind of mark up, there are serious problems with what we are paying.
The very problem you pose is that this person commits such a heinous act that you want to return the act in kind, letting him lower you to the same level.
Well, no and I don't care. You see to think that I think killing is bad or something. I do not. Killing outside of punishment imposed by the state or the preservation of your or someone's life is bad but within that, it is actually righteous enough that it will never snake to his level.
The rest of your drivel is an insult to the families who's members and friends life were taken. You can't work someone like a dog if they have a life prison sentence. If they refuse to do the work, what are you going to do, put them in jail jail? Are you going to then take their life? If you release him, it just says to the world that anyone can kill 70 people and be out after a few years- possible better off then when they went in with an education and all. A really smart move.
If you ask me, people like you and societies that thinks like you are the reason there is so much evil in the world.
Yes they do.. See how making statements with no substance backing it sounds less then intelligent?
That's exactly what people are saying. The current system of investment is broken and leads to ownership and control by the one percenters. The current system of investment needs to be scrapped and the economy needs a new foundation. Corporations should not be "people" in the future.
Just because you win against your aunt when you play monopoly doesn't mean you are a financial guru. But humor me anyways and tell me how this new foundation will work and how it will not turn into the same as we have today. In your efforts to do so, I bet you will either understand what is really happening or show how much you don't know.
I do not think you understand. The constitution doesn't give you rights, it stops the government from taking them away from you. It protects certain existing rights from government intrusion. If your right is not specifically listed, the government can take it from you whether the right actually exists or not.
I say actually exists or not because for the first 100 or so years of the country's existence, we didn't have a secrete ballot. Anyways, what the GP listed as other rights was rights specifically placed in the constitution via the amendment process that specifically bars the government from removing them. Determining where and how to vote is specifically mentioned in the constitution as a right of the states and is only bared by other federal or state constitutional provisions.
So whether you think you have a right to vote or a secrete ballot or not, nothing protects you from the government placing restrictions on that. In fact, the voting rights act of 1956 had to be passed specifically because states were requiring poll taxes and other provisions to deny illiterate or minority citizens the ability to vote.
While that is a bit crude, I was thinking more of the Obama style of compromise. I will not sign a law extending tax cuts to the rich. Oh noes, those republicans won't budge on raising taxes on the rich, it's all their fault we can't get a tax cut for the middle class passed (note that the tax cut is the same tax rates currently being paid but considered a cut by certain people for political gain because the current rates will expire soon).
I do not think anyone was saying the constitution is a global definition of all rights. It is a document specifically limiting what the federal government (and the states after later amendments) cannot specifically do to tread on certain rights. Without the constitution limiting the government, your rights or ability to use them might not survive the political will of the government.
Well, don't forget about the state constitution too. Now it might not say anything now, but most states have the ability to put initiatives on the ballot to amend the state constitution so if people object to it, there is a route they might want to try.
Well, demanding ID will frustrate the democrats to all hell and back. They insist that the majority of their voting base isn't competent or capable enough to get a government approved ID therefore no ID should ever be required. This is no more stupid then what happens in other countries except that a major political party isn't banking on their election success requiring these people to vote for them so they do not care when the no ID people cannot vote. Here on the other hand, it is racist somehow because evidently, all the people who can't seem to get a government ID in order to participate in the voting process belong to minority groups or something.
You lost all credibility when you can't tell the difference between a business news channel and the mainstream media outlets. Mainstream by default would not be limited to business news. Fox news would be mainstream, fox business channel would not be. It is a niche channel trying to focus on a portion of news like ESPN news is a niche market focusing on sports.
Well, at least without being able to get a license or spend money on food, he has a computer and internet access so he can tell us all how screwed he is and how requiring an ID would cause him to not be able to vote..
You mean freedom of speech and religion, to peacefully assemble and petition the government that is encoded in the constitution?
Ok, I'm with that. Fundamental rights like going to Church, protesting, writing a book is in the constitution, oh wait, where is the right to vote in the constitution? There is a right to not be denied the right to vote because of color of skin or previous condition of servitude, but no other inherent right to vote. hmm.. Maybe you can read it again and point it out to me? Perhaps you think we have a right that should be protected which is not?
If all it takes is a new supreme court to ignore all the references the current supreme court used in defining the second amendment so they can reinterpret things instead of amending the constitution, then wait until one takes your right to privacy, free speech, fair trial and everything else from you. I mean you are ok with the court redefining things to suit their current ideology right?
Dude, seriously, if you want Gun control then change the fucking constitution. Until then, stop saying I do not have a right that is imbedded in the constitution simply because you don't like it and want to read into it things that never existed. If you are allowed to succeed, then your right to free speech, your right to be secure in your papers, person, and effect from unwarranted searches, your right to a fair trial without unusual and or cruel punishment, your right to retain the rights other citizens hold, and all that are meaningless drivel waiting on the next guy to force alternative meanings into it by cracked out readings or outright disregarding the intent as well as obvious language of the Constitution.
If that makes me a qausireligious group of faith-based feverish morons who believe certain ignorant things, then come pry my bible from my cold dead hands- if you can. Otherwise fuck off and do it right else risk screwing everything else up. Your sense of righteousness has no fucking legal standing in the US so just because you think a certain way does not mean other rights will not be taken from you because you agree with the right. The US constitution is what bars the government from doing things, not your imaginary moral guard.
Seriously, can't anyone take personal responsibility any more? I can understand making the ID free, but you have at least a year if not 2 or 4 years to get the ID before needing it. You cannot get a bank account or cash a check without an ID, you can't fly somewhere without one. Most government services like Medicaid and housing assistance requires an ID to validate your income before allowing the benefits.
Everything needed to get an ID is also needed to get a job and complete the I-9 paperwork. In fact, you have needed ID to get a job since 1986 or so. So if those ID requirements disproportionally impact low income people, perhaps it should be provided free as it is necessary for legitimate and gainful employment in the US. Perhaps one of the reasons they are poor is because they are limited to the types of employment (and payment received) without an ID.
When the country was first formed, we did not have a secrete ballot. If the founding fathers did not see it as a right, I doubt any modern reading of the same constitution will provide the right. Unless the right was granted somewhere between now and then, it was just a good idea as far as the history of the US is concerned.
Yes, because having the poll worker examine an ID before having you sign the book is so cost prohibitive that no state should ever have to enforce that regulation.
Those damn evil republicans insisting that only legitimate citizens who present themselves as their true identity when voting are allowed to vote as the excessive costs of having a volunteer at the polling place look at an ID for a second before allowing them to proceed to vote will bankrupt the nation!! Tar and feather them all!
I suspect the expiration date is a proxy for "new enough to be hard to counterfeit" or "new enough that it can be easily verified." It's also a proxy for "expired but no expiration date is on the card."
Most state issued Id's are valid for 4 years (at least in the states I have lived in). If someone gets a driver's license at age 16 or 17, it will be expired by the time they are 20 or 21. If they have a sibling or friend who looks similar in appearance and within a couple years of age, it is easy to take that ID and pass it off as them.
I saw this happen all the time when I owned my bar in Ohio. Girls were especially bad about it but guys would do it too. A one year old out of date ID could be used by a 19 year old who is close enough to pass off as 21 and legal to purchase alcohol in appearance with the assistance of the outdated ID. I would find kids who I knew their fathers and met them personally at work family functions (previous jobs or parents trying to sell their kids raise money candy at work or whatever) trying to employ this trick.
I suspect that requiring a valid expiration date and being within the terms of it has something to do with this. Your big brother or big sister move to another county or state and you use an expired ID to vote on their old but still active voter registration. Federal law requires at least 2 federal elections to pass without you voting before they can take your name off the registration lists.
Slashdot Mirror
And as the op stated, you cannot disprove something that is supernatural. You cannot claim it is always false.
The bible is not a "everyone follow this exactly" book. For the most part, it is a history of the religion to understand the different covenants God made with man. You can have completely contradicting passages that do not contradict because they are under different covenants. It is when the new or latest covenant repeats something that you can look back and understand how it was before in order to understand how it means in the present.
Are you the self appointed decider of who is christian or not? Or is there some board that appoints people to make those declarations?
Going to church doesn't make you a "good" Christian- accepting the premise of Jesus as lord and the son of God does make you a Christian though.
The installer is not released under the gpl. That is where the supposed code dispute came from. It's a bit difficult to follow as they keep changing posts and crap. But my understanding was that because they used the same USB library that is freely available in some tool kit under a non-gpl license to format flashdrives, that one team assumed they stole their code, changed some file names and the splash image and passed it off as their own. They are now claiming that was a mistake.
Xbian and raspbmc are competing distributions of operating systems for the rasbery pi .(you can google rasbery pi).
Well, I say operating systems but they seem to be more or less flash utilities and scripts to change some settings and load debian linux from a debian repository somewhere. The quip seems to be over the installer program in which something was claimed to have been copied without attribution to the copyright holders or provisions in the GPL for redistributing the source.
Both projects seem to be run by kids which is really evident if you caught any of the back and forth banter over the last couple of days. I'm not really sure why this makes the front page of slashdot. Maybe I borked some settings or something.
I'm not sure it is a matter of X being the same though. If the situation is as the GP presented and X is a band aid, then the method of service would be different so it would actually be x-1 verses x+1 depending on the method of service.
I'm not the GP but I would say it is fraudulent insomuch that the billing could be that much absorbingly higher then the actual costs.I'm not sure how a band aid or putting a band aid on a patient could costs so much and be supported by law or normal process. I don't know if the spread is really that much or if it was something he pulled out of the air to make a point. But if they billing is able to be even close to that kind of mark up, there are serious problems with what we are paying.
Well, no and I don't care. You see to think that I think killing is bad or something. I do not. Killing outside of punishment imposed by the state or the preservation of your or someone's life is bad but within that, it is actually righteous enough that it will never snake to his level.
The rest of your drivel is an insult to the families who's members and friends life were taken. You can't work someone like a dog if they have a life prison sentence. If they refuse to do the work, what are you going to do, put them in jail jail? Are you going to then take their life? If you release him, it just says to the world that anyone can kill 70 people and be out after a few years- possible better off then when they went in with an education and all. A really smart move.
If you ask me, people like you and societies that thinks like you are the reason there is so much evil in the world.
Yes they do.. See how making statements with no substance backing it sounds less then intelligent?
Just because you win against your aunt when you play monopoly doesn't mean you are a financial guru. But humor me anyways and tell me how this new foundation will work and how it will not turn into the same as we have today. In your efforts to do so, I bet you will either understand what is really happening or show how much you don't know.
I do not think you understand. The constitution doesn't give you rights, it stops the government from taking them away from you. It protects certain existing rights from government intrusion. If your right is not specifically listed, the government can take it from you whether the right actually exists or not.
I say actually exists or not because for the first 100 or so years of the country's existence, we didn't have a secrete ballot. Anyways, what the GP listed as other rights was rights specifically placed in the constitution via the amendment process that specifically bars the government from removing them. Determining where and how to vote is specifically mentioned in the constitution as a right of the states and is only bared by other federal or state constitutional provisions.
So whether you think you have a right to vote or a secrete ballot or not, nothing protects you from the government placing restrictions on that. In fact, the voting rights act of 1956 had to be passed specifically because states were requiring poll taxes and other provisions to deny illiterate or minority citizens the ability to vote.
While that is a bit crude, I was thinking more of the Obama style of compromise. I will not sign a law extending tax cuts to the rich. Oh noes, those republicans won't budge on raising taxes on the rich, it's all their fault we can't get a tax cut for the middle class passed (note that the tax cut is the same tax rates currently being paid but considered a cut by certain people for political gain because the current rates will expire soon).
I do not think anyone was saying the constitution is a global definition of all rights. It is a document specifically limiting what the federal government (and the states after later amendments) cannot specifically do to tread on certain rights. Without the constitution limiting the government, your rights or ability to use them might not survive the political will of the government.
Well, don't forget about the state constitution too. Now it might not say anything now, but most states have the ability to put initiatives on the ballot to amend the state constitution so if people object to it, there is a route they might want to try.
Well, demanding ID will frustrate the democrats to all hell and back. They insist that the majority of their voting base isn't competent or capable enough to get a government approved ID therefore no ID should ever be required. This is no more stupid then what happens in other countries except that a major political party isn't banking on their election success requiring these people to vote for them so they do not care when the no ID people cannot vote. Here on the other hand, it is racist somehow because evidently, all the people who can't seem to get a government ID in order to participate in the voting process belong to minority groups or something.
hmm.. wouldn't it be much easier to just keep track of who donated how much to your election campaign and not worry about how some citizen voted?
You seem to be arguing that going to the beach is dangerous because there are sharks when you are at sea world wading in the shark tank.
You lost all credibility when you can't tell the difference between a business news channel and the mainstream media outlets. Mainstream by default would not be limited to business news. Fox news would be mainstream, fox business channel would not be. It is a niche channel trying to focus on a portion of news like ESPN news is a niche market focusing on sports.
Well, at least without being able to get a license or spend money on food, he has a computer and internet access so he can tell us all how screwed he is and how requiring an ID would cause him to not be able to vote..
You mean freedom of speech and religion, to peacefully assemble and petition the government that is encoded in the constitution?
Ok, I'm with that. Fundamental rights like going to Church, protesting, writing a book is in the constitution, oh wait, where is the right to vote in the constitution? There is a right to not be denied the right to vote because of color of skin or previous condition of servitude, but no other inherent right to vote. hmm.. Maybe you can read it again and point it out to me? Perhaps you think we have a right that should be protected which is not?
If all it takes is a new supreme court to ignore all the references the current supreme court used in defining the second amendment so they can reinterpret things instead of amending the constitution, then wait until one takes your right to privacy, free speech, fair trial and everything else from you. I mean you are ok with the court redefining things to suit their current ideology right?
Dude, seriously, if you want Gun control then change the fucking constitution. Until then, stop saying I do not have a right that is imbedded in the constitution simply because you don't like it and want to read into it things that never existed. If you are allowed to succeed, then your right to free speech, your right to be secure in your papers, person, and effect from unwarranted searches, your right to a fair trial without unusual and or cruel punishment, your right to retain the rights other citizens hold, and all that are meaningless drivel waiting on the next guy to force alternative meanings into it by cracked out readings or outright disregarding the intent as well as obvious language of the Constitution.
If that makes me a qausireligious group of faith-based feverish morons who believe certain ignorant things, then come pry my bible from my cold dead hands- if you can. Otherwise fuck off and do it right else risk screwing everything else up. Your sense of righteousness has no fucking legal standing in the US so just because you think a certain way does not mean other rights will not be taken from you because you agree with the right. The US constitution is what bars the government from doing things, not your imaginary moral guard.
And paypal does not ask for payment information?
How do I get one of these accounts.
This info is being provided whether it is obvious or not. Maybe not directly to the merchant, but paypal is online too.
I agree with you, but I find videos on youtube, something awful and other sites all the time. It's not like people are as smart as we are.
Are you one of Romney's 47%?
Seriously, can't anyone take personal responsibility any more? I can understand making the ID free, but you have at least a year if not 2 or 4 years to get the ID before needing it. You cannot get a bank account or cash a check without an ID, you can't fly somewhere without one. Most government services like Medicaid and housing assistance requires an ID to validate your income before allowing the benefits.
Everything needed to get an ID is also needed to get a job and complete the I-9 paperwork. In fact, you have needed ID to get a job since 1986 or so. So if those ID requirements disproportionally impact low income people, perhaps it should be provided free as it is necessary for legitimate and gainful employment in the US. Perhaps one of the reasons they are poor is because they are limited to the types of employment (and payment received) without an ID.
I doubted it will go up for appeal.
When the country was first formed, we did not have a secrete ballot. If the founding fathers did not see it as a right, I doubt any modern reading of the same constitution will provide the right. Unless the right was granted somewhere between now and then, it was just a good idea as far as the history of the US is concerned.
Yes, because having the poll worker examine an ID before having you sign the book is so cost prohibitive that no state should ever have to enforce that regulation.
Those damn evil republicans insisting that only legitimate citizens who present themselves as their true identity when voting are allowed to vote as the excessive costs of having a volunteer at the polling place look at an ID for a second before allowing them to proceed to vote will bankrupt the nation!! Tar and feather them all!
Most state issued Id's are valid for 4 years (at least in the states I have lived in). If someone gets a driver's license at age 16 or 17, it will be expired by the time they are 20 or 21. If they have a sibling or friend who looks similar in appearance and within a couple years of age, it is easy to take that ID and pass it off as them.
I saw this happen all the time when I owned my bar in Ohio. Girls were especially bad about it but guys would do it too. A one year old out of date ID could be used by a 19 year old who is close enough to pass off as 21 and legal to purchase alcohol in appearance with the assistance of the outdated ID. I would find kids who I knew their fathers and met them personally at work family functions (previous jobs or parents trying to sell their kids raise money candy at work or whatever) trying to employ this trick.
I suspect that requiring a valid expiration date and being within the terms of it has something to do with this. Your big brother or big sister move to another county or state and you use an expired ID to vote on their old but still active voter registration. Federal law requires at least 2 federal elections to pass without you voting before they can take your name off the registration lists.