Sorry, but how do you come to the conclusion that the cost/benefit ratio favors legality here? The costs in socialized services for survivors of abuse are enormous. The costs to prosecute and incarcerate offenders are comparatively tiny.
He referred to "The cost of ever more stringent child pornography laws", in the context of the current discussion. He didn't suggest legality for all child porn.
So, do you have some statistics on the cost of social services provided to cartoon victims?
> SCOTUS refused to hear the because they agreed that the lower court's ruling that the plaintiff lacked standing was correct.
I've seen that "lacks standing" excuse for dropping suits before, and it always amazed me how someone could "lack standing" to sue over an issue that directly affects them.
While I have no opinion on the legality of his citizenship (conspiracy seems a bit far fetched - what motive?), how can a citizen "lack standing" to question the election of his government officials?
Re:Evolution is change over time
on
Evolving Rocks
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The one that the ID-ists object to is Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection-- that is, the theory of the mechanism of that change in living beings.
For what little it's worth around here, I used to belong to one of those churches in my youth. This is the part that they do not object to.
They do believe in adaptation - that a species changes over time due to natural selection. But they do not believe in evolution - that one species changes into another (as in monkey to human).
No, they never took a stand on rocks:) At least not while I was there.
> Never frame the discussion where they can weasel out, nail them on specifics and let their foolishness shine.
> gay marriage can be opposed by someone who "supports civil unions".
California has civil unions - approved by the same voters who voted down gay marriage twice.
That shoots a rather large hole in your theory.
So now you have to ask yourself - if gays have the same "legal rights" with civil unions, why the huge push for marriage? What's the difference? And if the voters are willing to accept "civil unions", they obviously don't care about "punishing sinners". So why won't they go for marriage? If it were just simple-minded religious hatred as you paint it, then they would have thrown out civil unions as well.
There's a lot more to this than what you're seeing.
> or are you simply irked when a bar-owner decides to show a football game on his TV in his bar?
Funny, I asked people a similar question when our state recently passed it's new non-smoking law.
Like you, I was under the mis-apprehension that a proprietor owns his establishment. I was unaware that it was a "public place", which seems to mean that it belongs to the customers who vote on how to run it - with the loudest votes counting the most.
I'll bet the proprietor is feeling quite the fool for having paid for it.
Both systems allowed for slavery. It doesn't take a change in the type of government to prohibit slavery. It just takes the willingness of those in power to prohibit it.
Slavery ended with the passing of the 13th amendment after the war. Until then, it was still legal in the North wherever individual states or territories didn't prohibit it. Thanks to our lousy government run education, everyone thinks Lincoln abolished slavery with his "Emancipation Proclamation". Read it. It allowed slavery in the north.
It's amazing how our government has managed to whitewash history to make it look like hundreds of thousands of chivalrous northern soldiers fought and died to free the black man. Yet if you look at the way blacks were treated in the north before and after the war, you'd quickly realize that these northerners were hardly willing to die for the rights of blacks. But the whole "free the slaves" cover is great for whipping up patriotism while covering the real reason for the war - a federal power grab by wealthy interests.
Face it. If the northerners really believed in equality and rights strongly enough to fight for them, we wouldn't have had another century of segregation in both the north and the south followed by race riots all over the north in the 60's.
So instead of having discussions about the unequal allocation of funds to schools, or investment into inner city neighborhoods, the discussions become about stupid things...
Those things have nothing to do with racism. Nobody is taking things away from those people because of the color of their skin. Your complaint isn't that whites are oppressing these people. Your complaint is that whites aren't paying for these people.
Racism is too important a problem for so-called "white" people to approach it narcissistically by reducing it to the purity or impurity of their own personal, private intentions.
No. "Racism" is just an accusation people like you toss about to try to extort a handout from others.
It's taken years, but "white" people are finally starting to get used to it. Yeah, keep screaming racist at the top of your lungs. I don't care what people think about me, I'm still not buying your lunch.
But I hope they lose this one. It would be nice to see some reasonable legal limits on these damn click-wrap licenses.
But at the same time, I'm not sure I would by a clone. I don't see anything that would legally obligate Apple to keep clones in mind when they upgrade MacOs. But I do see incentives to break compatibility.
So I wouldn't count on being able to get OS updates for a Psystar in the future.
All the same, if you paid for a copy of MacOs, you should be able to do as you damn well please with it.
It sounds like you either live in a nice area, or you have an influential profession.:)
I think the OP was referring to the fact that in many places in the US, the police only really respect lawyers and corporations with lawyers. These people might actually cause trouble for them. For anyone else, they will begrudgingly file a report and no more.
Everybody mentions that their business model is flawed, and that they need to change.
But who is the "they" who are pushing this crap? They == the executives who control the current racket. And their "business model" basically boils down to "riding on the backs of the relatively few who actually produce something."
"They" have to fight the future, because the future does not include most of them.
WTF does Iraq have to do with the article, the parent comment, or the parent's parent?
We're all sick of the war, Spanky. But hard as it may be for you to believe, there are still topics out there that have nothing to do with it whasoever.
When I was a young'un I worked for a local farmer. I forget the exact circumstances, but the old man walked away from a guy he was dealing with who implied that the old man was trying to cheat him. He basically said, "Well, if you think I'm going to cheat you, then you should probably deal with someone else." and asked the guy to leave.
He explained it to me later this way: "People who cheat expect you to cheat them. People who steal expect you to steal from them. He just expects us to do what he would do, given the chance.".
My understanding of the fair housing act (from the Craigslist lawsuit) is that there is no limit to the criteria you can set for a roomate - which is defined as someone who is sharing common living space.
If the renter shares no common living space, then he/she/it is not a roomate and the arrangement is subject to applicable laws.
I'm not sure how roomate.com works though. If you can find renters there, then they may be subject to the law.
(Of course, I'm sure the fact that none of this is even remotely related to interstate commerce and is therefore out of federal jurisdiction will never come up....)
>>Buying back your own stock is an admission you have nothing better to do with your money that give it back to your shareholders
>'You invested in us, and now you get some of the profit' sounds like thouroughly sensible economics.
Dividends are company profit shared with investors.
Stock buybacks are just that - buying the stock back from the investors so that there are fewer shares in circulation. Each remaining share should then be worth more. If you've bought back a lot, and the remaining shares aren't going up - well, that's not good.
What he means by "nothing better to do" is that investors buy stock expecting that the company is going to go out an make a pile of money so it's value goes up - not just buy the stock back from them. He's saying that they have a pile of money, but no ideas for building it further. So they are buying out some of their investors to maintain value for the rest.
(I haven't followed MS stock so I don't know if what he says is true - I'm just trying to explain the concept).
Yeah, the current administration is guilty of that crap.
What about the last administration and it's wagging the dog wars in Somalia and Kosovo - where there was NO US interest at all let alone oil interests? When groups opposed to the administration suddenly found themselves audited by the IRS? Where hundreds of FBI files on political opponents turned up in the White House (can you say Nixon?)
The parent poster was right. The democrats will violate your rights just as quick as the Republicans. They will just feed you a story you can swallow, instead of one the Republicans can swallow.
The original question was an honest one - not flamebait.
I've seen some products mentioned in the responses that I confess I'm not familiar with. But most of the products I am familiar with were NOT ones where Microsoft came out with a product to compete on the basis of quality.
Someone mentioned IE vs Netscape. You're kidding right? Read the history there and then come back and tell me that Microsoft made IE because they thought they could offer consumers a better quality product than Netscape.
Yes, I buy MS mice. Some of the hardware products are good quality. I hadn't considered that because I don't typically think of hardware when I think of MS. But they are good.
Foxpro v Access? I confess ignorance there.
Netscape, Word, Lotus, OS/2 - read the transcripts from the antitrust suit. Microsoft didn't compete by offering better quality - it used it's control of DOS and Windows to lower the quality of what you already had until you had to switch to something else. Their strategy has usually been to limit your options - not to offer you a better quality product.
And the guy who has had XP running for 7 years without a reinstall - congratulations! You say that like it's unusual NOT to reinstall your operating system.
Microsfot has forgotten, like many other corporations, is that all one needs to focus on is making a quality product.
Forgotten?
Seriously - at the risk of sounding like a basher - has Microsoft ever produced a product where they focused on providing better quality than the competition?
I've known many people who have purchased Microsoft products for compatibility with existing infrastructure (basically vendor lock-in). I've never personally known anyone who has bought a Microsoft product because they perceived it as having more features, being easier to use, or being more stable than competing products.
Slashdot Mirror
He referred to "The cost of ever more stringent child pornography laws", in the context of the current discussion. He didn't suggest legality for all child porn.
So, do you have some statistics on the cost of social services provided to cartoon victims?
I've seen that "lacks standing" excuse for dropping suits before, and it always amazed me how someone could "lack standing" to sue over an issue that directly affects them.
While I have no opinion on the legality of his citizenship (conspiracy seems a bit far fetched - what motive?), how can a citizen "lack standing" to question the election of his government officials?
For what little it's worth around here, I used to belong to one of those churches in my youth. This is the part that they do not object to.
They do believe in adaptation - that a species changes over time due to natural selection. But they do not believe in evolution - that one species changes into another (as in monkey to human).
No, they never took a stand on rocks :) At least not while I was there.
> gay marriage can be opposed by someone who "supports civil unions".
California has civil unions - approved by the same voters who voted down gay marriage twice.
That shoots a rather large hole in your theory.
So now you have to ask yourself - if gays have the same "legal rights" with civil unions, why the huge push for marriage? What's the difference? And if the voters are willing to accept "civil unions", they obviously don't care about "punishing sinners". So why won't they go for marriage? If it were just simple-minded religious hatred as you paint it, then they would have thrown out civil unions as well.
There's a lot more to this than what you're seeing.
Funny, I asked people a similar question when our state recently passed it's new non-smoking law.
Like you, I was under the mis-apprehension that a proprietor owns his establishment. I was unaware that it was a "public place", which seems to mean that it belongs to the customers who vote on how to run it - with the loudest votes counting the most.
I'll bet the proprietor is feeling quite the fool for having paid for it.
> for off-campus conduct of any type, including speech, if the off-campus conduct is likely to cause disruption on campus.
Interesting then that the judge didn't cite any of those "many, many cases" in his decision.
So do you define "bearing something" as owning it, or carrying it around with you?
That's ridiculous.
Both systems allowed for slavery. It doesn't take a change in the type of government to prohibit slavery. It just takes the willingness of those in power to prohibit it.
Slavery ended with the passing of the 13th amendment after the war. Until then, it was still legal in the North wherever individual states or territories didn't prohibit it. Thanks to our lousy government run education, everyone thinks Lincoln abolished slavery with his "Emancipation Proclamation". Read it. It allowed slavery in the north.
It's amazing how our government has managed to whitewash history to make it look like hundreds of thousands of chivalrous northern soldiers fought and died to free the black man. Yet if you look at the way blacks were treated in the north before and after the war, you'd quickly realize that these northerners were hardly willing to die for the rights of blacks. But the whole "free the slaves" cover is great for whipping up patriotism while covering the real reason for the war - a federal power grab by wealthy interests.
Face it. If the northerners really believed in equality and rights strongly enough to fight for them, we wouldn't have had another century of segregation in both the north and the south followed by race riots all over the north in the 60's.
So that would be.... the giant douche?
Those things have nothing to do with racism. Nobody is taking things away from those people because of the color of their skin. Your complaint isn't that whites are oppressing these people. Your complaint is that whites aren't paying for these people.
Racism is too important a problem for so-called "white" people to approach it narcissistically by reducing it to the purity or impurity of their own personal, private intentions.
No. "Racism" is just an accusation people like you toss about to try to extort a handout from others.
It's taken years, but "white" people are finally starting to get used to it. Yeah, keep screaming racist at the top of your lungs. I don't care what people think about me, I'm still not buying your lunch.
What's really sad is that your wife's way of thinking is typical here in America.
It's not real unless you saw it on TV.
But I hope they lose this one. It would be nice to see some reasonable legal limits on these damn click-wrap licenses.
But at the same time, I'm not sure I would by a clone. I don't see anything that would legally obligate Apple to keep clones in mind when they upgrade MacOs. But I do see incentives to break compatibility.
So I wouldn't count on being able to get OS updates for a Psystar in the future.
All the same, if you paid for a copy of MacOs, you should be able to do as you damn well please with it.
Most versions of Windows are licensed to the original purchaser of the original machine.
This is why places that sell used PCs generally say that they come without Windows - even if they still have the COA sticker on them.
Heh heh. You think?
You'd have trouble finding only one. That's why he's not very popular with the republican "base".
I think the OP was referring to the fact that in many places in the US, the police only really respect lawyers and corporations with lawyers. These people might actually cause trouble for them. For anyone else, they will begrudgingly file a report and no more.
But who is the "they" who are pushing this crap? They == the executives who control the current racket. And their "business model" basically boils down to "riding on the backs of the relatively few who actually produce something."
"They" have to fight the future, because the future does not include most of them.
We're all sick of the war, Spanky. But hard as it may be for you to believe, there are still topics out there that have nothing to do with it whasoever.
Good. Because they count on that when they vote.
When I was a young'un I worked for a local farmer. I forget the exact circumstances, but the old man walked away from a guy he was dealing with who implied that the old man was trying to cheat him. He basically said, "Well, if you think I'm going to cheat you, then you should probably deal with someone else." and asked the guy to leave.
He explained it to me later this way: "People who cheat expect you to cheat them. People who steal expect you to steal from them. He just expects us to do what he would do, given the chance.".
At those prices maybe I can finally afford to upgrade mine!
If the renter shares no common living space, then he/she/it is not a roomate and the arrangement is subject to applicable laws.
I'm not sure how roomate.com works though. If you can find renters there, then they may be subject to the law.
(Of course, I'm sure the fact that none of this is even remotely related to interstate commerce and is therefore out of federal jurisdiction will never come up....)
>'You invested in us, and now you get some of the profit' sounds like thouroughly sensible economics.
Dividends are company profit shared with investors.
Stock buybacks are just that - buying the stock back from the investors so that there are fewer shares in circulation. Each remaining share should then be worth more. If you've bought back a lot, and the remaining shares aren't going up - well, that's not good.
What he means by "nothing better to do" is that investors buy stock expecting that the company is going to go out an make a pile of money so it's value goes up - not just buy the stock back from them. He's saying that they have a pile of money, but no ideas for building it further. So they are buying out some of their investors to maintain value for the rest.
(I haven't followed MS stock so I don't know if what he says is true - I'm just trying to explain the concept).
Yeah, the current administration is guilty of that crap.
What about the last administration and it's wagging the dog wars in Somalia and Kosovo - where there was NO US interest at all let alone oil interests? When groups opposed to the administration suddenly found themselves audited by the IRS? Where hundreds of FBI files on political opponents turned up in the White House (can you say Nixon?)
The parent poster was right. The democrats will violate your rights just as quick as the Republicans. They will just feed you a story you can swallow, instead of one the Republicans can swallow.
I've seen some products mentioned in the responses that I confess I'm not familiar with. But most of the products I am familiar with were NOT ones where Microsoft came out with a product to compete on the basis of quality.
Someone mentioned IE vs Netscape. You're kidding right? Read the history there and then come back and tell me that Microsoft made IE because they thought they could offer consumers a better quality product than Netscape.
Yes, I buy MS mice. Some of the hardware products are good quality. I hadn't considered that because I don't typically think of hardware when I think of MS. But they are good.
Foxpro v Access? I confess ignorance there.
Netscape, Word, Lotus, OS/2 - read the transcripts from the antitrust suit. Microsoft didn't compete by offering better quality - it used it's control of DOS and Windows to lower the quality of what you already had until you had to switch to something else. Their strategy has usually been to limit your options - not to offer you a better quality product.
And the guy who has had XP running for 7 years without a reinstall - congratulations! You say that like it's unusual NOT to reinstall your operating system.
Forgotten?
Seriously - at the risk of sounding like a basher - has Microsoft ever produced a product where they focused on providing better quality than the competition?
I've known many people who have purchased Microsoft products for compatibility with existing infrastructure (basically vendor lock-in). I've never personally known anyone who has bought a Microsoft product because they perceived it as having more features, being easier to use, or being more stable than competing products.