NASA's an agency of the Federal Government, which brought you the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. This is one of the reasons why you can't take Republicans seriously when they say Government is no good at anything. Could you come up with a backronym that good? I doubt it.
Did they teach you how to be a smug superior asshole there or did you learn that on your own?
Keep in mind that no one is talking about taxing churches differently than any other for-profit organization
That would kill many churches. Property taxes alone would have bankrupted the UU churches that I've belonged to. That's a bigger deal than Federal taxes for most small churches; Federal corporate taxes generally apply to earnings, not revenue (did they teach you the difference in college?) and most churches don't run a surplus. Whatever comes in goes back out. Of course, having to file a Federal tax return would impose a non-zero cost, even if they didn't end up owing any money.
and if you think a church is non-profit you've been hitting the sacramental wine a bit too heavily
The ones that I belonged to were. They did good work in the community, without proselytizing (which is a protected activity under the free exercise clause, but never mind that) so I'm disinclined to support a public policy that's going to burden them with additional paperwork and expenses that they can ill afford.
I guess I have a problem with the unapologetic part. The United States is founded on a tacit respect for the belief structure of one's neighbors. Do we always live up to that ideal? Hell no. That doesn't mean we stop trying though. I would summarize my personal philosophy as "Live and let live."
Frankly, in the meat-space I try to avoid conversations about religion. They're like conversations about politics, whatever position you adopt is invariably going to piss 50% of the room off. When the conversation happens despite my best efforts I try my utmost to keep it respectful. Equating someone's faith with a belief in alien abductions is anything but respectful.
The United States has a history of successfully prosecuting Mafioso, including the highest echelons of leadership. Is it easy? No. Of course, it's not supposed to be easy to take away someone's freedom.:)
If Scientology is truly the "big fat global scam" (apologies to South Park) that its opponents believe it to be, well, RICO would seem to provide an appropriate solution. There are a non-zero number of people who actually believe the tenets of Scientology (hell, the Branch Davidians still have members) so the trick here would be separating the wheat from the chaff.
I honestly don't know enough about Scientology to say whether or not their activities rise to the level of RICO offenses. If the worst about them is to be believed it would seem that they do.
The idea that 'In God We Trust' printed on our money is somehow legal is what makes me insane.
I think the motto is pretty silly myself but if it truly drives you insane I think you need some perspective. I can't recall the last time I even noticed the motto on the greenbacks in my possession. All I've ever noticed about them is the sad fact that I always seem to have Washington and Lincoln in my wallet never have Mr. Franklin.:(
The way you deal with an organization like Scientology is by bringing criminal cases against its membership, where applicable. False imprisonment, fraud, and so forth. Don't attack the religion itself, that's a recipe for disaster, but where members thereof break the secular law they should be held accountable. If Scientology is the big fat global scam (apologies to South Park) we all think it is, well, it shouldn't be able to survive its leadership going to jail.
The point is that having a superior product (which is debatable in the case of Nokia's OS, but whatever) is no guarantee of market success. Google had the critical mass to make their OS work and it's a mystery to me why Nokia couldn't see that. Or, for that matter, why Blackberry and Microsoft still can't.
Good for you. There are plenty of Atheists that feel the need to condemn people of faith; you walk up to that line yourself by equating their belief with a belief in astrology, fairies, and alien abductions. More militant atheists feel the need to preach their lack of faith to the masses in a manner that's every bit as obnoxious as a born again southern baptist, with a healthy dose of smug superiority added for good measure.
Personally, I'm Agnostic, because anybody (militant theist or atheist) that thinks they have all the answers scares the shit out of me. True believers in anything, religion, atheism, a political party, whatever, they are the people that frighten me the most.
That's a political non-starter, whatever the merits may be. If you think you're going to change the law to tax every church in the United States I've got a bridge to sell you. I wouldn't even support it; I've belonged to UU churches and every single one of them operates on a financial razor edge. Taxing them would push them over the cliff. I'm sure they're not the only ones.
You're kvetching about giving the state the authority to destroy religions it disagrees with, I have yet to see why we should acknowledge it as actually being a religion.
You're preaching to the choir condemning Scientology, I doubt you'll find anyone here who disagrees with you there. I certainly don't. That said, can you at least acknowledge the frightening potential for abuse if we empower some Government bureaucrat to determine what is and is not a legitimate religion? How do you draw the line? There's no objective test. You can't go by age, that shuts out LDS, UUism, Wiccans, and a bunch of others. There's a lot of people that would welcome them being shut out, but I'm sure that's not what you're advocating for.
The only fair way to do it would be to treat all non-profit corporations (which is how all churches are incorporated in the US) the same. Leave religion out of it. If you want to tighten the rules for non-profit corporations you might find more support, there's plenty of abuse there, mostly in the secular world, but it's still a tough needle to thread.
The USA system has worked well for centuries why mess it up?
Because there's a significant number of people here that are hostile towards religion in any shape or form. The mere fact that it exists drives them insane.
Then lets avoid picking on Scientology and revoke tax exempt status for all churches.
Leaving aside the problems this would likely pose under American law, in the United States it's generally the case that non-profit corporations are not taxed at any level of government. At the local level they're exempt from property taxes. At the state level they're exempt from sales and income taxes. At the federal level they're exempt from income taxes.
Doing what you wish would require a wholesale revision of the tax code at every level of Government. It would be fought tooth and nail by countless different organizations, religious and secular. In short, it's a political non-starter.
It sounds like someone at Nokia realised that mobile phones were in a race to the bottom and the profit is in the back-end infrastructure.
Not quite. They ran their mobile phone business into the ground by clinging to yesterday at the expense of today and tomorrow. Clinging to Symbian when Android emerged was a mistake, one that they should have realized, but who wants to admit they've been out-thought? Same story as Motorola Mobility, incidentally, both outfits made superior headsets in the areas that really matter (ever try to destroy a Nokia phone? They were built like tanks. And Motorola handsets had the best radios ever made, take one alongside a Samsung into the wilderness and see who drops the connection first.....) but they failed to market them effectively and got crushed by inferior Samsung products.
Nokia's mobile phone business is not the whole enterprise. Far from it.:) Same with Motorola and Motorola Mobility, incidentally. Random stupid story: Visiting a friend of mine in Turku, noted that he was a complete Apple Fanboy. iPad, iPhone, iBook, the works. He doubtless has or will soon have an Apple Watch.
"Yki, what's with all the apple stuff? You're the reason Nokia is dying."
*ten seconds of silence*, "Fuck you."
The solar constant is approximately 1.4 kilowatts per square meter. Aluminum smelting requires power input measured in the high megawatt/low gigawatt range. Have fun acquiring enough land to do it with solar power, whether thermal or photovoltaic. If you do manage to do that, have fun competing against the manufacturers that are using cheaper sources of energy that work 24/7/365.
You are arguing against a position I have not taken. I have no use for the "War on Drugs." I have already stated that I am in favor of the legalization of several substances for recreational use. For those that I would not legalize, well, I don't think we need a war against them. I simply think they should be regulated, in the same manner that all sorts of dangerous substances are regulated.
The degree of regulation should be based on the dangerousness of the substance in question. You can't buy C4 for your July 4th party, but you can get your hands on black powder without too much trouble.
Incidentally, as a former pot smoker, I tend to agree with the South Park line, "The truth is, marijuana probably isn't going to make you kill people. Most likely isn't going to fund terrorists, but pot makes you feel fine with being bored and it's when you're bored that you should be learning a new skill or some new science or being creative. If you smoke pot you may grow up to find out that you're not good at anything."
I wish I could have back the five years of my life I spent stoned. Does that mean I think it should be banned? No, it just means that I'm not going out of my way to encourage people to use it. I've done my best to discourage the people who have asked me about it. Sadly, like many political issues today, there's not much room for any position outside of absolutism.
I think that drugs are a side effect of a larger more fundamental issue in those people's lives. I mean, who doesn't like feeling good? Drugs can make you feel really, really good.
So can overeating, that doesn't mean it's something to be encouraged or condoned. Some of us have the self-control not to do such things and resent having to subsidize those that don't. That's without even considering the more immediate impact that drug addicts have on those around them. Have you ever seen a baby that was born addicted to drugs, or children whose needs aren't being met because Mom and/or Dad are too busy chasing the dragon? I used to work for a human services agency, so I have....
Don't misunderstand me, I agree with the crux of what you're trying to say, particularly: "I think that drugs are a side effect of a larger more fundamental issue in those people's lives."
I have never encouraged a policy of blanket prohibition, throughout this thread I've said drugs should be regulated, not banned. The degree of regulation is something we could talk about for hours, suffice it to say, I'm going to get off the bus if you start talking about recreational heroin, cocaine, and other substances with a similar potential for abuse.
This path has absolutely devastated our options, as far as a sustainable future goes. Eventually, the yeast drown in their own waste (CO2 and alcohol - so fitting). That's what will happen to us.
That's a very depressing and cynical outlook. A sustainable future simply requires a sustainable source of energy to power civilization. You mention such a source -- nuclear -- but you simultaneously believe that civilization as we currently know it is doomed?
I'd be curious to know how you arrived at the 1,000,000,000 figure as the ceiling of a sustainable population? I don't see a practical limit as long as energy is available. You see doom and gloom, I eventually see a future more like Star Trek, where nearly limitless (by modern standards) supplies of energy are available and we have an abundance economy. I guess we can check back in a few generations to see which one of us was right.....:)
At least we agree that humanity will still be around, in one shape or another. The doomsday people that think we're going to wipe ourselves out annoy me to no end.
I agree with you that the message is stupid and unnecessary, but in the hierarchy of annoying things in life it ranks pretty close to the bottom. I can't even recall the last time I saw it, usually I pop the DVD into the player, hit play, then situate the munchies and beverages I want close at hand for the next two hours.:)
I guess it's hard for me to get worked up about, because I'm not much of a movie or television person. The movies I care enough about to own can be counted on two hands. Most of my television watching is PBS. *shrug*
I brought it up because you said, "Non-zero yes but, there are many many more investigations than arrests." Even if you accept the premise that there's a low probability of being caught, it's still a high impact event. Can you put a price on your freedom? The winning move is clearly not to play. If you must play, play by yourself. Far more criminals get caught because someone rolled on them than get caught through gumshoe police work.
Greed is also a factor, because it tends to override common sense. Common sense says that anyone working in a sensitive position at the lottery is going to find themselves under a microscope if they hit it big. Frankly I'm surprised there weren't rules in place precluding such employees from playing.
Your odds of being caught for the commission of a crime are significantly higher than your odds of ending up in a plane crash. I'm not certain why you're trying to equate them or argue this point with me.
I have already explained my point of view, ad nauseam. I will explain it one last time: It is not logical to rely on others if you're going to gamble something as fundamental as your freedom. The deck is already stacked against you, adding other flawed human beings into the equation is not likely to increase your chance of success.
Nitpick it all you want, I'm not going to walk back my original statement. The words "trusted" and "co-conspirator" are mutually exclusive.
Slashdot Mirror
NASA's an agency of the Federal Government, which brought you the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. This is one of the reasons why you can't take Republicans seriously when they say Government is no good at anything. Could you come up with a backronym that good? I doubt it.
I am college educated.
Did they teach you how to be a smug superior asshole there or did you learn that on your own?
Keep in mind that no one is talking about taxing churches differently than any other for-profit organization
That would kill many churches. Property taxes alone would have bankrupted the UU churches that I've belonged to. That's a bigger deal than Federal taxes for most small churches; Federal corporate taxes generally apply to earnings, not revenue (did they teach you the difference in college?) and most churches don't run a surplus. Whatever comes in goes back out. Of course, having to file a Federal tax return would impose a non-zero cost, even if they didn't end up owing any money.
and if you think a church is non-profit you've been hitting the sacramental wine a bit too heavily
The ones that I belonged to were. They did good work in the community, without proselytizing (which is a protected activity under the free exercise clause, but never mind that) so I'm disinclined to support a public policy that's going to burden them with additional paperwork and expenses that they can ill afford.
It's one of the largest cities in Finland, which is the home country of Nokia....
I guess I have a problem with the unapologetic part. The United States is founded on a tacit respect for the belief structure of one's neighbors. Do we always live up to that ideal? Hell no. That doesn't mean we stop trying though. I would summarize my personal philosophy as "Live and let live."
Frankly, in the meat-space I try to avoid conversations about religion. They're like conversations about politics, whatever position you adopt is invariably going to piss 50% of the room off. When the conversation happens despite my best efforts I try my utmost to keep it respectful. Equating someone's faith with a belief in alien abductions is anything but respectful.
The United States has a history of successfully prosecuting Mafioso, including the highest echelons of leadership. Is it easy? No. Of course, it's not supposed to be easy to take away someone's freedom. :)
If Scientology is truly the "big fat global scam" (apologies to South Park) that its opponents believe it to be, well, RICO would seem to provide an appropriate solution. There are a non-zero number of people who actually believe the tenets of Scientology (hell, the Branch Davidians still have members) so the trick here would be separating the wheat from the chaff.
I honestly don't know enough about Scientology to say whether or not their activities rise to the level of RICO offenses. If the worst about them is to be believed it would seem that they do.
The idea that 'In God We Trust' printed on our money is somehow legal is what makes me insane.
I think the motto is pretty silly myself but if it truly drives you insane I think you need some perspective. I can't recall the last time I even noticed the motto on the greenbacks in my possession. All I've ever noticed about them is the sad fact that I always seem to have Washington and Lincoln in my wallet never have Mr. Franklin. :(
Come back Ben, I miss you.....
The way you deal with an organization like Scientology is by bringing criminal cases against its membership, where applicable. False imprisonment, fraud, and so forth. Don't attack the religion itself, that's a recipe for disaster, but where members thereof break the secular law they should be held accountable. If Scientology is the big fat global scam (apologies to South Park) we all think it is, well, it shouldn't be able to survive its leadership going to jail.
The point is that having a superior product (which is debatable in the case of Nokia's OS, but whatever) is no guarantee of market success. Google had the critical mass to make their OS work and it's a mystery to me why Nokia couldn't see that. Or, for that matter, why Blackberry and Microsoft still can't.
Good for you. There are plenty of Atheists that feel the need to condemn people of faith; you walk up to that line yourself by equating their belief with a belief in astrology, fairies, and alien abductions. More militant atheists feel the need to preach their lack of faith to the masses in a manner that's every bit as obnoxious as a born again southern baptist, with a healthy dose of smug superiority added for good measure.
Personally, I'm Agnostic, because anybody (militant theist or atheist) that thinks they have all the answers scares the shit out of me. True believers in anything, religion, atheism, a political party, whatever, they are the people that frighten me the most.
Didn't you read the summary? It's a "fully electric" digital camera. If you want low light performance you need one with a gasoline engine. :)
That's a political non-starter, whatever the merits may be. If you think you're going to change the law to tax every church in the United States I've got a bridge to sell you. I wouldn't even support it; I've belonged to UU churches and every single one of them operates on a financial razor edge. Taxing them would push them over the cliff. I'm sure they're not the only ones.
I'm glad you interpreted my bad one line joke at the expense of a friend as an in-depth analysis of Nokia's bad business decisions.....
You're kvetching about giving the state the authority to destroy religions it disagrees with, I have yet to see why we should acknowledge it as actually being a religion.
You're preaching to the choir condemning Scientology, I doubt you'll find anyone here who disagrees with you there. I certainly don't. That said, can you at least acknowledge the frightening potential for abuse if we empower some Government bureaucrat to determine what is and is not a legitimate religion? How do you draw the line? There's no objective test. You can't go by age, that shuts out LDS, UUism, Wiccans, and a bunch of others. There's a lot of people that would welcome them being shut out, but I'm sure that's not what you're advocating for.
The only fair way to do it would be to treat all non-profit corporations (which is how all churches are incorporated in the US) the same. Leave religion out of it. If you want to tighten the rules for non-profit corporations you might find more support, there's plenty of abuse there, mostly in the secular world, but it's still a tough needle to thread.
The USA system has worked well for centuries why mess it up?
Because there's a significant number of people here that are hostile towards religion in any shape or form. The mere fact that it exists drives them insane.
Then lets avoid picking on Scientology and revoke tax exempt status for all churches.
Leaving aside the problems this would likely pose under American law, in the United States it's generally the case that non-profit corporations are not taxed at any level of government. At the local level they're exempt from property taxes. At the state level they're exempt from sales and income taxes. At the federal level they're exempt from income taxes.
Doing what you wish would require a wholesale revision of the tax code at every level of Government. It would be fought tooth and nail by countless different organizations, religious and secular. In short, it's a political non-starter.
Symbian still runs circles around Linux as a kernel for mobile devices
Betamax was arguably superior to VHS but that mattered not a whit once VHS had a critical mass of users.
It sounds like someone at Nokia realised that mobile phones were in a race to the bottom and the profit is in the back-end infrastructure.
Not quite. They ran their mobile phone business into the ground by clinging to yesterday at the expense of today and tomorrow. Clinging to Symbian when Android emerged was a mistake, one that they should have realized, but who wants to admit they've been out-thought? Same story as Motorola Mobility, incidentally, both outfits made superior headsets in the areas that really matter (ever try to destroy a Nokia phone? They were built like tanks. And Motorola handsets had the best radios ever made, take one alongside a Samsung into the wilderness and see who drops the connection first.....) but they failed to market them effectively and got crushed by inferior Samsung products.
Nokia's mobile phone business is not the whole enterprise. Far from it. :) Same with Motorola and Motorola Mobility, incidentally. Random stupid story: Visiting a friend of mine in Turku, noted that he was a complete Apple Fanboy. iPad, iPhone, iBook, the works. He doubtless has or will soon have an Apple Watch.
"Yki, what's with all the apple stuff? You're the reason Nokia is dying."
*ten seconds of silence*, "Fuck you."
Game, set, and match. :P
The solar constant is approximately 1.4 kilowatts per square meter. Aluminum smelting requires power input measured in the high megawatt/low gigawatt range. Have fun acquiring enough land to do it with solar power, whether thermal or photovoltaic. If you do manage to do that, have fun competing against the manufacturers that are using cheaper sources of energy that work 24/7/365.
You are arguing against a position I have not taken. I have no use for the "War on Drugs." I have already stated that I am in favor of the legalization of several substances for recreational use. For those that I would not legalize, well, I don't think we need a war against them. I simply think they should be regulated, in the same manner that all sorts of dangerous substances are regulated.
The degree of regulation should be based on the dangerousness of the substance in question. You can't buy C4 for your July 4th party, but you can get your hands on black powder without too much trouble.
Incidentally, as a former pot smoker, I tend to agree with the South Park line, "The truth is, marijuana probably isn't going to make you kill people. Most likely isn't going to fund terrorists, but pot makes you feel fine with being bored and it's when you're bored that you should be learning a new skill or some new science or being creative. If you smoke pot you may grow up to find out that you're not good at anything."
I wish I could have back the five years of my life I spent stoned. Does that mean I think it should be banned? No, it just means that I'm not going out of my way to encourage people to use it. I've done my best to discourage the people who have asked me about it. Sadly, like many political issues today, there's not much room for any position outside of absolutism.
I think that drugs are a side effect of a larger more fundamental issue in those people's lives. I mean, who doesn't like feeling good? Drugs can make you feel really, really good.
So can overeating, that doesn't mean it's something to be encouraged or condoned. Some of us have the self-control not to do such things and resent having to subsidize those that don't. That's without even considering the more immediate impact that drug addicts have on those around them. Have you ever seen a baby that was born addicted to drugs, or children whose needs aren't being met because Mom and/or Dad are too busy chasing the dragon? I used to work for a human services agency, so I have....
Don't misunderstand me, I agree with the crux of what you're trying to say, particularly: "I think that drugs are a side effect of a larger more fundamental issue in those people's lives."
I have never encouraged a policy of blanket prohibition, throughout this thread I've said drugs should be regulated, not banned. The degree of regulation is something we could talk about for hours, suffice it to say, I'm going to get off the bus if you start talking about recreational heroin, cocaine, and other substances with a similar potential for abuse.
This path has absolutely devastated our options, as far as a sustainable future goes. Eventually, the yeast drown in their own waste (CO2 and alcohol - so fitting). That's what will happen to us.
That's a very depressing and cynical outlook. A sustainable future simply requires a sustainable source of energy to power civilization. You mention such a source -- nuclear -- but you simultaneously believe that civilization as we currently know it is doomed?
I'd be curious to know how you arrived at the 1,000,000,000 figure as the ceiling of a sustainable population? I don't see a practical limit as long as energy is available. You see doom and gloom, I eventually see a future more like Star Trek, where nearly limitless (by modern standards) supplies of energy are available and we have an abundance economy. I guess we can check back in a few generations to see which one of us was right..... :)
At least we agree that humanity will still be around, in one shape or another. The doomsday people that think we're going to wipe ourselves out annoy me to no end.
I agree with you that the message is stupid and unnecessary, but in the hierarchy of annoying things in life it ranks pretty close to the bottom. I can't even recall the last time I saw it, usually I pop the DVD into the player, hit play, then situate the munchies and beverages I want close at hand for the next two hours. :)
I guess it's hard for me to get worked up about, because I'm not much of a movie or television person. The movies I care enough about to own can be counted on two hands. Most of my television watching is PBS. *shrug*
I brought it up because you said, "Non-zero yes but, there are many many more investigations than arrests." Even if you accept the premise that there's a low probability of being caught, it's still a high impact event. Can you put a price on your freedom? The winning move is clearly not to play. If you must play, play by yourself. Far more criminals get caught because someone rolled on them than get caught through gumshoe police work.
Greed is also a factor, because it tends to override common sense. Common sense says that anyone working in a sensitive position at the lottery is going to find themselves under a microscope if they hit it big. Frankly I'm surprised there weren't rules in place precluding such employees from playing.
Your odds of being caught for the commission of a crime are significantly higher than your odds of ending up in a plane crash. I'm not certain why you're trying to equate them or argue this point with me.
I have already explained my point of view, ad nauseam. I will explain it one last time: It is not logical to rely on others if you're going to gamble something as fundamental as your freedom. The deck is already stacked against you, adding other flawed human beings into the equation is not likely to increase your chance of success.
Nitpick it all you want, I'm not going to walk back my original statement. The words "trusted" and "co-conspirator" are mutually exclusive.