Yes, they did censor POTS. Wire fraud is a special law specifically to address POTS. There are similar for gambling and anything that may be illegal in any juridiction it gets terminated in. Also, threatening or harrasing phone calls and a do npt call list.
It won't last. In 98 or so, the FCC submited one of its bianual reports to congress that had a detailed analisys of why the internet is not a title 2 entity and squarly falls within the intended meaning of information services. Congress has not changed any laws since 96 concerning this so the first court challenge that brings it up will likely end it.
I'm posting from phone so cannot post a link but you can google FCC report to congress internet not covered and should be able to find it. I belive it was the second week of april 1998. Anyways, it actually names members of congress, their communications on the floor and to the FCC as well as other things to get to their conclusion.
That's "demons", and how do we know she created these entities? Reaching for the Bible as a reason is just an exercise in non-wellfounded set theory, e.g., why is this true, because the Bible says so. Why is the Bible true? Because the Bible is true." In symbols,
We are talking about the religious beliefs of a set of people and how they would react to something (alien life). While what you just said is true, it is not in context with the discussion. Whether the bible is true or not is not on the table for how people who believe it is would react to something.
Do you understand this concept? It's like if I said people who like broccoli have no problem eating cauliflower and you chiming in with an argument that you can never know if someone like broccoli.
And in non-wellfounded set theory, the above (flat) system of equations has a solution, and non-wellfounded set theory is consistent, streams in computer science are modeled nicely in it. However, it is not an excuse to treat something written down in any old book as true.
Except in this case, we are already accepting the given that there are people who believe the bible is true and this is how they would react because this is in the set of facts they believe for whatever reason is true.
Lets dumb this down a bit. I have 10 apples. I give sally 2 apples. I have 8 apples now. There is absolutely no way you can prove I have 10 apples, I gave sally any apples or that I have 8 apples. Sally has an apple in each hand. Sally asks you to guess how many apples does she have. The answer is not "you cannot prove you were ever connected to apples therefore she has no apples". No, we take the story about the apples as true in the context of sally and the apples.
It's no different with evangelical Christians who believe the bible is true. The answer to how they would react because of their religion is not,"it is not an excuse to treat something written down in any old book as true". The answer lays within their already determined beliefs and part of that is the bible _is_ true without regard to any way you may think about the subject.
A generally always true fact, the bigger the government the smaller the citizen.
Any time a government tells you that you have to do something, you always loose freedom. The questions are, how much freedom do you want or are willing to loose and how much freedom are you willing to take or let be taken from others.
The term free market has never been void of regulation insomuch as to accept fraud. In fact, the lack of fraud generally is a requirement. It goes along the lines of an informed choice. If your whatever is not how you present it, that informed portion is missing.
All you need to do is form a country on the moon, then protecct its sovereignty. It would be a government just like any other and withing the spirit of the treaty.
This FAA regulation will have about as much force behind it as a ship in open ocean. You fon't claim to own the entire ocean but an attack on the ship would be treated as an attack on the country.corporations owning the ship really doesn't change that.
You wouldn't have to pay for them to go to other schools. In Ohio, it was this way when i was in school. You had your shots or your parents had to find another way to satisfy the state's education requirement. They never paid for private schools.
Forcing vaccines is the same as forcing medication though.
No, it wasn't a dumb question. When all you are hearing is vaccinatr because it protects you then it is a logical question.
However, if you are just going to assume crap about someone and base your reply on what exists in your head, i'm not sure you should be in the discussion. The GP said he supports vaccination.
Because children are compelled by law to attend school of some sort. Going to the mall or movie theator or whatever is purely an elective activity that you have the decision to risk exposure or not and can take reasonable precautions to avoid. It would be like banning extra marital sex because STDs can kill or mame people. At some point, it is your decision and not the government's.
Again, what part of a creator creating makes you think of evolution?
You seems dead set to inject a premise not neccrsary in order to keep your opinion of someone else reaction alive. Life on other worlds in the context of a creator creating needs evolution about as much as you insisting your three year old kid's finger painting relies on evolution to exist. Its purely a false premise in context.
Not sure why you are being a dick. The guy asked a question and nothing more.
Or are you upset over his concept of freedom and asking how far can the government intrude?
Personally, i think kids not vaccinated for deadly or dehabilitating diseases should be bared from attending public schools. But i do not support the government forcing anyone to take any medication.
While there certainly are batshit crazy christians out there. There may even be a few cults in the same line. The problem i had was not with him bashing them, but being utterly clueless in the attemps to do so. He made shit up with no clue to what he was talking about. He is the equal of your BBQ friend upset over the god particle. Actually, its worse.
But i guess it isn't worth getting upset over. Oh, ever hear the saying love the sinner but hate the sin? Or maybe hate the sin not the sinner? Sometimes its dificult to distinguish between the sin and sinner when it come to expressing love and hate.
What part of a creator creating makes you thing biological evolution? Just because it happened elsewhere does not mean it is different. Revelations 10-6 says god created the heavens and all that is in it. Nothing really out of line with the bible.
Oh, and satan is one of three possabilities i listed. I'm not sure why you are focused on it while intentionally ignoring the relevat things. Is it more of the not caring how stupid you look?
And yet anoyher incorect opinion. And you even need to change the goal posts to put it into play. Life does not equal only inteligent life. But its not important because yhe bible says god created the heavens and all that is in them revelations 10-6.
That is why it doesn't matter. If it exists, god created its existance according to the bible.
Actually, they passed a law a while back requiring the administration to present a budget to congress so they wouls stop crying about not funding what the administrations wanted. Its just a whishlist more or less and often quite a bit maked it through to the final budget.
But yes, you are correct, constitutionally it is congress' job. But i think this is more political theator to set up issues for 2016. They cannot really poke a candidate running for more of the same so they have to find a wedge of some sorts to say elect another democrat and this time it will be different without running against the sitting administration.
Why would yhe evangelicals version of god be threatened? Their teaching say god was the creater and always will be. We know he created other beings like angels and worst case scenario would be that satan created them as we know he created deamons.
Oh, i get it now. You just wanted to bash some Christians and didn't care how stupid you appeared doing it. Well, cary on i guess. Your doing a fine job at it.
But this brick is little more than a high tech swap cooler already used in homes in dry climates for years and years before AC was even invented. It would seem that the only magicsl thing about this is it would be vertical instead of horizontal. It still needs water and it still works off the evaporative cooling effect.
They wouldn't have to abandon anything. I do not know where you got that idea from. Toyota has all sorts of production assets in the US but they are a Japanese company. Likewise with BMW, and Audi. Lots of companies are like that.
They will, as they do now, pay taxes on their economic activity within the US. The difference is that the money outside the US will never be patriated within the US and never subject to any US tax. Their foreign entities will no longer be subject to embargoes the US imposes unless their relocated country follows it too. They can also charge more for the imports to their US entities effectively siphoning US profits before they can be taxed.
Some might relocate shops and crap. Those would likely be considering offshoring anyways. But there is no need to do so to relocate the company under a different country jurisdiction.
They already pay taxes on the economic activity inside the US. Nothing would change on that front. However, a significant portion of that would be moved to foreign jurisdictions where they would escape them entirely. We lose the ability to make laws governing their behavior outside the US and so on.
While that sounds good and all to the uninformed, but do you realize how many treaties the US would have to back out of that actually have economic disadvantages if you are not in them?
What you suggest would basically ruin foreign trade with the US outside of rogue third world countries.
Who says they are not learning all sorts of things? Cooking is all they are telling us about. And by they, it could be DARPA or the robots themselves. Maybe they are waiting for just the right time.
Let's talk income tax, because the vast majority of people are employees, not small business owners (when you compare the amount of actual business owners to the amount of pandering that goes towards them, it's hilarious.)
We can, but then we are not talking about the rich or 1% now. Well, unless they become employees of their own investments in which case they still pass the buck down to the consumers.
When you make a certain amount, as I do, small changes to my tax rates don't really bother me. I make a shitload of money, so another couple of % of my earnings isn't really anything I'm prepared to uproot my life for, pick up and move for.
I doubt you make as much money as you want us to think you do. Your reading comprehension is too lacking for that to be believable. We are talking about "how a taxes that only targets the top 1%, 0.1% and 0.01% would be "regressive"."
Go ahead and hit the parent button a couple of times if you missed that. Of course this makes you seem like you are arguing apples while holding oranges. I guess the big problem for you is that we aren't even talking about fruit. Stupid sauce indeed, but if I was you, I would stop throwing crap around before you know what is going on. It may be that you are the only one catching it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, they did censor POTS. Wire fraud is a special law specifically to address POTS. There are similar for gambling and anything that may be illegal in any juridiction it gets terminated in. Also, threatening or harrasing phone calls and a do npt call list.
It won't last. In 98 or so, the FCC submited one of its bianual reports to congress that had a detailed analisys of why the internet is not a title 2 entity and squarly falls within the intended meaning of information services. Congress has not changed any laws since 96 concerning this so the first court challenge that brings it up will likely end it.
I'm posting from phone so cannot post a link but you can google FCC report to congress internet not covered and should be able to find it. I belive it was the second week of april 1998. Anyways, it actually names members of congress, their communications on the floor and to the FCC as well as other things to get to their conclusion.
You loeft it under yhe couch but that is the last place you will look for it.
Anyways, i'll let you use mine. I take the bus.
OMG, are you a lost?
We are talking about the religious beliefs of a set of people and how they would react to something (alien life). While what you just said is true, it is not in context with the discussion. Whether the bible is true or not is not on the table for how people who believe it is would react to something.
Do you understand this concept? It's like if I said people who like broccoli have no problem eating cauliflower and you chiming in with an argument that you can never know if someone like broccoli.
Except in this case, we are already accepting the given that there are people who believe the bible is true and this is how they would react because this is in the set of facts they believe for whatever reason is true.
Lets dumb this down a bit. I have 10 apples. I give sally 2 apples. I have 8 apples now. There is absolutely no way you can prove I have 10 apples, I gave sally any apples or that I have 8 apples. Sally has an apple in each hand. Sally asks you to guess how many apples does she have. The answer is not "you cannot prove you were ever connected to apples therefore she has no apples". No, we take the story about the apples as true in the context of sally and the apples.
It's no different with evangelical Christians who believe the bible is true. The answer to how they would react because of their religion is not,"it is not an excuse to treat something written down in any old book as true". The answer lays within their already determined beliefs and part of that is the bible _is_ true without regard to any way you may think about the subject.
A generally always true fact, the bigger the government the smaller the citizen.
Any time a government tells you that you have to do something, you always loose freedom. The questions are, how much freedom do you want or are willing to loose and how much freedom are you willing to take or let be taken from others.
The term free market has never been void of regulation insomuch as to accept fraud. In fact, the lack of fraud generally is a requirement. It goes along the lines of an informed choice. If your whatever is not how you present it, that informed portion is missing.
All you need to do is form a country on the moon, then protecct its sovereignty. It would be a government just like any other and withing the spirit of the treaty.
This FAA regulation will have about as much force behind it as a ship in open ocean. You fon't claim to own the entire ocean but an attack on the ship would be treated as an attack on the country.corporations owning the ship really doesn't change that.
You wouldn't have to pay for them to go to other schools. In Ohio, it was this way when i was in school. You had your shots or your parents had to find another way to satisfy the state's education requirement. They never paid for private schools.
Forcing vaccines is the same as forcing medication though.
No, it wasn't a dumb question. When all you are hearing is vaccinatr because it protects you then it is a logical question.
However, if you are just going to assume crap about someone and base your reply on what exists in your head, i'm not sure you should be in the discussion. The GP said he supports vaccination.
Because children are compelled by law to attend school of some sort. Going to the mall or movie theator or whatever is purely an elective activity that you have the decision to risk exposure or not and can take reasonable precautions to avoid. It would be like banning extra marital sex because STDs can kill or mame people. At some point, it is your decision and not the government's.
Again, what part of a creator creating makes you think of evolution?
You seems dead set to inject a premise not neccrsary in order to keep your opinion of someone else reaction alive. Life on other worlds in the context of a creator creating needs evolution about as much as you insisting your three year old kid's finger painting relies on evolution to exist. Its purely a false premise in context.
How many other aspect of life do we expect others to change their behavior because we fear something?
Not sure why you are being a dick. The guy asked a question and nothing more.
Or are you upset over his concept of freedom and asking how far can the government intrude?
Personally, i think kids not vaccinated for deadly or dehabilitating diseases should be bared from attending public schools. But i do not support the government forcing anyone to take any medication.
I find this interesting.
While there certainly are batshit crazy christians out there. There may even be a few cults in the same line. The problem i had was not with him bashing them, but being utterly clueless in the attemps to do so. He made shit up with no clue to what he was talking about. He is the equal of your BBQ friend upset over the god particle. Actually, its worse.
But i guess it isn't worth getting upset over. Oh, ever hear the saying love the sinner but hate the sin? Or maybe hate the sin not the sinner? Sometimes its dificult to distinguish between the sin and sinner when it come to expressing love and hate.
What part of a creator creating makes you thing biological evolution? Just because it happened elsewhere does not mean it is different. Revelations 10-6 says god created the heavens and all that is in it. Nothing really out of line with the bible.
Oh, and satan is one of three possabilities i listed. I'm not sure why you are focused on it while intentionally ignoring the relevat things. Is it more of the not caring how stupid you look?
And yet anoyher incorect opinion. And you even need to change the goal posts to put it into play. Life does not equal only inteligent life. But its not important because yhe bible says god created the heavens and all that is in them revelations 10-6.
That is why it doesn't matter. If it exists, god created its existance according to the bible.
Actually, they passed a law a while back requiring the administration to present a budget to congress so they wouls stop crying about not funding what the administrations wanted. Its just a whishlist more or less and often quite a bit maked it through to the final budget.
But yes, you are correct, constitutionally it is congress' job. But i think this is more political theator to set up issues for 2016. They cannot really poke a candidate running for more of the same so they have to find a wedge of some sorts to say elect another democrat and this time it will be different without running against the sitting administration.
Expect a lot more of this in the future.
Why would yhe evangelicals version of god be threatened? Their teaching say god was the creater and always will be. We know he created other beings like angels and worst case scenario would be that satan created them as we know he created deamons.
Oh, i get it now. You just wanted to bash some Christians and didn't care how stupid you appeared doing it. Well, cary on i guess. Your doing a fine job at it.
I'm sure you meant concepts of holistic medicine.
But this brick is little more than a high tech swap cooler already used in homes in dry climates for years and years before AC was even invented. It would seem that the only magicsl thing about this is it would be vertical instead of horizontal. It still needs water and it still works off the evaporative cooling effect.
They wouldn't have to abandon anything. I do not know where you got that idea from. Toyota has all sorts of production assets in the US but they are a Japanese company. Likewise with BMW, and Audi. Lots of companies are like that.
They will, as they do now, pay taxes on their economic activity within the US. The difference is that the money outside the US will never be patriated within the US and never subject to any US tax. Their foreign entities will no longer be subject to embargoes the US imposes unless their relocated country follows it too. They can also charge more for the imports to their US entities effectively siphoning US profits before they can be taxed.
Some might relocate shops and crap. Those would likely be considering offshoring anyways. But there is no need to do so to relocate the company under a different country jurisdiction.
They already pay taxes on the economic activity inside the US. Nothing would change on that front. However, a significant portion of that would be moved to foreign jurisdictions where they would escape them entirely. We lose the ability to make laws governing their behavior outside the US and so on.
Sigh...
While that sounds good and all to the uninformed, but do you realize how many treaties the US would have to back out of that actually have economic disadvantages if you are not in them?
What you suggest would basically ruin foreign trade with the US outside of rogue third world countries.
Who says they are not learning all sorts of things? Cooking is all they are telling us about. And by they, it could be DARPA or the robots themselves. Maybe they are waiting for just the right time.
We get in our mech suits and seek and destroy. That is of course after several years calling it work place violance rather than robot terrorism.
We can, but then we are not talking about the rich or 1% now. Well, unless they become employees of their own investments in which case they still pass the buck down to the consumers.
I doubt you make as much money as you want us to think you do. Your reading comprehension is too lacking for that to be believable. We are talking about "how a taxes that only targets the top 1%, 0.1% and 0.01% would be "regressive"."
Go ahead and hit the parent button a couple of times if you missed that. Of course this makes you seem like you are arguing apples while holding oranges. I guess the big problem for you is that we aren't even talking about fruit. Stupid sauce indeed, but if I was you, I would stop throwing crap around before you know what is going on. It may be that you are the only one catching it.