I'd go even further than that and say that if you surround yourself with people who aren't interested in spelling, grammar, or punctuation, your skills will drop. The reverse is also true, and there are many communities on the internet where all of those skills are still important.
If it's your school, than I agree, first amendment (or similar) rights should apply. If the stadium was built with taxpayer dollars, then we're in a legal grey area.
But that then brings up the question: Why was a for-profit enterprise able to use tax dollars?
What if all persons who bought tickets had to sign an agreement to such an effect, with the consideration that they are then able to see the game, and if they refuse, they are given a full refund?
Would that not form a binding contract?
They cannot control people doing things outside the stadium, but it's largely accepted practice that if you're in my home, you obey my rules. Same with any business place.
Why the focus on illegal immigration? That's the crux of the trouble over Sherrif Joe. That's all it is.
No, the question is, "Why the focus on massive human rights violations and deaths perpetrated by the sheriff's office?"
I feel no need to put links on here that are everywhere in the rest of this thread. Oh wait, I specifically have you "use your sources". Way to control the debate!
In short, you are completely ignoring the issues here and using the standard Rebublican tactic of blaming it on those evil lib'rals.
You seem to be stating that for me to believe in democracy at all, ever, I must believe in it for everything. And that somehow, not believing that it's always the right solution makes me a hypocrite?
Heads of state should be elected. Sheriffs and judges should not. This is why the United States and other countries have a division between the executive branch and the legislative branch; it balances the power and insures that no single branch can rule by fiat. Even when the executive branch is completely replaced, as it often is, the Supreme Court justices, for example, are still there from previous administrations' nominations, and serve as a sanitizing influence, preventing the new administration from massively changing the fabric of the current system.
Enjoy your black and white politics. Much more comfortable looking at a small section than the big picture, eh?
So why is it liberals want more and more aspects of our lives run by the government, thus giving guys like Arpaio more control over our lives? Why do liberals scoff at the notion of a limiting Congress to powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution?
Hi, I'm a liberal.
I don't support the election of sheriffs or judges for precisely the reason that a tyranny of the majority can occur, resulting in the sort of human rights violations, deaths, and perversions of the law seen here.
But feel free to keep doing your strawman thing, it seems to be working well for the Republican party.
Thus I would suspect that a large portion of his constituency are woefully ignorant of his policies.
No.
Sad to say, but my experience has taught me that many people are fully capable of supporting human rights violations so long as they're happening to "the other", and not them. Whether that other is criminals / suspects, immigrants (legal or not), or simply another race doesn't matter; it means that they are on a slightly higher footing in society due to Sheriff Joe's actions. And that makes them feel good.
And in a county where a sheriff is elected, it results in laws and the enforcement thereof skewed toward that irrational majority.
You have not given a reason why it is better than existing solutions, such as Facebook (which I believe has nearly all the functionality of Twitter, perhaps with the exception of the @ and # direction codes for status messages).
The only thing Facebook currently doesn't have is SMS status updates, and many, many phones now come with, well, web browsers and specialized apps that can access all of Facebook's content.
So, again. What is the point of Twitter? Because I still haven't figured it out.
I'd prefer it if you actually answered my questions if you're going to reply, by the way, rather than posting a comment with lots of sarcasm but no content.
Interestingly, there is a Love, Sex, and Relationships section of the XKCD forums. You'll find all manner of geek-related love and sex advice there, and if you have questions, you can ask and (generally) not be judged harshly.
Also, I believe the video does question the validity of gold-backed money as an alternative. It seems to push more toward things like LETS and other alternative, sustainable economy systems. The producer of both videos has actually recently come up with a proposal called the Digital Coin, which, while it isn't perfect, seems like a fairly good idea.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd go even further than that and say that if you surround yourself with people who aren't interested in spelling, grammar, or punctuation, your skills will drop. The reverse is also true, and there are many communities on the internet where all of those skills are still important.
If it's your school, than I agree, first amendment (or similar) rights should apply. If the stadium was built with taxpayer dollars, then we're in a legal grey area.
But that then brings up the question: Why was a for-profit enterprise able to use tax dollars?
What if all persons who bought tickets had to sign an agreement to such an effect, with the consideration that they are then able to see the game, and if they refuse, they are given a full refund?
Would that not form a binding contract?
They cannot control people doing things outside the stadium, but it's largely accepted practice that if you're in my home, you obey my rules. Same with any business place.
Why the focus on illegal immigration? That's the crux of the trouble over Sherrif Joe. That's all it is.
No, the question is, "Why the focus on massive human rights violations and deaths perpetrated by the sheriff's office?"
I feel no need to put links on here that are everywhere in the rest of this thread. Oh wait, I specifically have you "use your sources". Way to control the debate!
In short, you are completely ignoring the issues here and using the standard Rebublican tactic of blaming it on those evil lib'rals.
Willful blindness.
I am... confused.
You seem to be stating that for me to believe in democracy at all, ever, I must believe in it for everything. And that somehow, not believing that it's always the right solution makes me a hypocrite?
Heads of state should be elected. Sheriffs and judges should not. This is why the United States and other countries have a division between the executive branch and the legislative branch; it balances the power and insures that no single branch can rule by fiat. Even when the executive branch is completely replaced, as it often is, the Supreme Court justices, for example, are still there from previous administrations' nominations, and serve as a sanitizing influence, preventing the new administration from massively changing the fabric of the current system.
Enjoy your black and white politics. Much more comfortable looking at a small section than the big picture, eh?
So why is it liberals want more and more aspects of our lives run by the government, thus giving guys like Arpaio more control over our lives? Why do liberals scoff at the notion of a limiting Congress to powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution?
Hi, I'm a liberal.
I don't support the election of sheriffs or judges for precisely the reason that a tyranny of the majority can occur, resulting in the sort of human rights violations, deaths, and perversions of the law seen here.
But feel free to keep doing your strawman thing, it seems to be working well for the Republican party.
Thus I would suspect that a large portion of his constituency are woefully ignorant of his policies.
No.
Sad to say, but my experience has taught me that many people are fully capable of supporting human rights violations so long as they're happening to "the other", and not them. Whether that other is criminals / suspects, immigrants (legal or not), or simply another race doesn't matter; it means that they are on a slightly higher footing in society due to Sheriff Joe's actions. And that makes them feel good.
And in a county where a sheriff is elected, it results in laws and the enforcement thereof skewed toward that irrational majority.
Not to mention that even if the sheriff and his deputies are completely corrupt, killing cops rarely goes over well.
In more convenient linked form: Phoenix Police Seize PCs of a Blogger Critical of the Department
What the hell is going on there? Do people actually support this BS?
Y'know, I think directly executing HTML as a shell script might have... issues.
Twitter is all marketing.
You have not given a reason why it is better than existing solutions, such as Facebook (which I believe has nearly all the functionality of Twitter, perhaps with the exception of the @ and # direction codes for status messages).
The only thing Facebook currently doesn't have is SMS status updates, and many, many phones now come with, well, web browsers and specialized apps that can access all of Facebook's content.
So, again. What is the point of Twitter? Because I still haven't figured it out.
I'd prefer it if you actually answered my questions if you're going to reply, by the way, rather than posting a comment with lots of sarcasm but no content.
Two or three fairly new people could ambush and kill a 7xGM if they played their cards right.
The killing of Lord British, anyone?
All this means is that Star Trek is right, again. And I thought we'd avoid the eugenics wars. :^(
Where's time-travelling Jean Luc Picard when you need him?
Hey, I needed a new boat, can you blame me?
I've done enough work in contracting that I figure it goes something like this:
$50,000: Website development
$17,050,000: "Consultation fees"
I'm sorry, the correct Slashdot meme would have been "In Soviet Russia, you filter Websense."
I'll give you a warning this time, but next time it'll be your geek card. Carry on, citizen.
Interestingly, there is a Love, Sex, and Relationships section of the XKCD forums. You'll find all manner of geek-related love and sex advice there, and if you have questions, you can ask and (generally) not be judged harshly.
And that is why you should watch Money as Debt II: Promises Unleased as well.
Also, I believe the video does question the validity of gold-backed money as an alternative. It seems to push more toward things like LETS and other alternative, sustainable economy systems. The producer of both videos has actually recently come up with a proposal called the Digital Coin, which, while it isn't perfect, seems like a fairly good idea.
Wow, what an insightful post.
If you haven't already seen it, take a look at Money as Debt, which expands on what the parent said in a 45 minute video. Good (and scary) stuff.
Check the BBC article from 1999 on that site (especially the graph). Then look at the current debt number.
Thanks, Bush!
Uh, I think so, Brain, but I don't think the octopus would be very happy with it.
I'm sorry, you must phrase your response in the form of a car analogy.
FYI, the first bailout was put forward by Bush. You may or may not know this, just that a lot of people seem to think it was Obama's idea.
Yes, force every ISP to do so.
What, you think that attempting to force a foreign company to block your own citizens is any less evil?
It's all sleight of hand. Make it look like TPB is the one doing the blocking, and uninformed users are none-the-wiser.
+1, Epic Win