I'm sorry you think I'm a nut. My belief is belief, yes. But its also grounded on logic and reasonability.
No, its grounded in a fairy tail, much like the stories of Zeus and other greek gods, or the gods of any number of ancient cultures.
I know it appears to be illogical in that I'm trying to argue from within a particular system of belief instead of arguing from outside the system to attempt to prove my point. But it actually is more logically correct to argue from the standpoint of internal consistency given that I actually do believe that God is really capable of total sovereignty. There is certainly more evidence than just the Bible to corroborate the existence of Jesus and his actions (Josephus, archeological clues, even the Koran). But because I believe that God is really capable of proving His own existence I rely most on the Bible to describe the truth.
You're right, its not logical. Its ciruclar reasoning. God exists because you believe he exists. There's no evidence of anything in the bible, other then storytellers then, like now, take reality to base their story in. Fallout 3 is based in reality, that doesnt mean its true. Its a story, with some basis in reality.
Please, show me evidence that jesus turned water into wine, or bread into fish. Surely there was the equivolent of a news paper back then.. surely there must be something other than the bible. If god is capable of proving he exists, why has he not done so for me? Oh I know, I choose to ignore it. What a very convient response.
The version that most closely approximates the earliest manuscripts that most consistently agree. As far as English translations go, most scholars would agree that its either New American Standard Bible (NASB) or the English Standard Version (ESV). It turns out that there really aren't that many inconsistencies amongst the different copies we have access to now-a-days. Most of the differences are things like "the Lord Jesus Christ" vs. "Jesus Christ the Lord" it counts as a difference, but its really not meaningfully different. If you're serious about examining this topic, and I hope you are, take a listen to this presentation by Dr. Dan Wallace. It's excellent. Very academic from one of the world's leading scholars.
Theres plenty on Wikipedia about the problems with the bible, and they are not insignificant as you claim. Again I point out the whole "do not murder vs. kill." Oh, and lets not forget that Jews don't believe the New Testiment because they claim god said the original covenant was eternal. So, how exactly are we to know? Is god a liar? He knows everything, so he knew when the first covenant was given that it really wouldn't be eternal. Oh, and lets not forget that Asia never had anything like the wests concept of a god.
Actually the main reason I believe in God is because there is an empty tomb where the body of Jesus was initially laid.
Oh, you're certain that after 2000 years we located the actual tomb? We KNOW that it was a tomb for a guy named jesus?
Its empty because He rose from the dead which sort of serves as a receipt of payment for our sins, thus satisfying God's righteous wrath against those sins.
Well, it could be because we don't know where the tomb actually is. It could be that the disiples took it. It could be that the romans took it. It could be that an animal took it. It could be that everyone returned to a different location.
Now if you're going to try and make the "the disciples stole the body" argument, I'm sad to say that the evidence is quite stacked against that one. (1) they were a rag-tag group of laborers who were dispersed and scared when their leader was killed and had no ability or courage to try and 'rescue his body'
Oh, well, that evidence is overwhelming. Give me a break, you just accept that nonsense as truth, and even offer it as evidence? Really, if you're going to say "oh well they were scared and ran" and say that its the ONLY way events co
Funny, because the location bar and bookmarks are useless for me.
Oh, and yes, Flash crashing FF is fairly common. Just because its something YOU don't use doesn't mean its not common. Try doing some googling, plenty of people have the flash plugin crashing firefox.
Same with Firefox: the end-user features are selling points for the mass of users, whereas technical features are hard for anyone but geeks to get excited about except in an abstract sense.
Um, the browser NOT crashing when flash crashes is something any user can get excited about.
The problem with something like process separation isn't that it's trivial, quite the opposite, it's very hard and this serves as a barrier to spending a great deal of time on a feature that only a very few people will care about.
It was added from IE7 to 8, and there wasn't that long of a delay there. Oh, and a browser NOT crashing is something ALOT of people will care about.
Yes, but the rules had to be changed, and it was technically a flaw in Flash that worked (and supposedly would have worked against any OS with Flash, and DEP turned off). http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=993
Except there seem to be other parts that go back to any killing is wrong. If it were a single verse, as you claim, I doubt we'd have scholars actively debating this point. It would be a settled matter, but its not. Why is that?
Heh... so I guess the Word of God flowed through King James then huh? And whatever changes he made are now the Word of God. Bleck. So, even if what you say is true, how do we know which version of the Bible is his word?
Might as well believe in the tooth fairy as far as I'm concerned. You have just as much evidence the fairy exists as you do god.
You sound like a nut that believes because you want to believe.
So do you have anything substancal to say, other than posting links that are irrelevent, or linking to some other users belief?
Its not a flame war; you're just trying to spread fud. I guess Linux fanbois haven't kept up with MS, and are doomed to point out critisms from the 90s. That's ok, believe what you want. I have a feeling that you're a twit... as it the dumbass/. user twitter. You're just about as informed as he was..
What major discrepancies? Yes, there have been a few changes over the years by different translators, typos, etc. But I don't think any of them could be considered major. There are many different ways to translate things from any language. And there weren't any copiers back when the first books first came out. Yes, we can't pretty much be guaranteed that Paul's letters that are in the bible differ slightly from those Paul himself wrote.
Well, the debate between if the commandment is "Thou shall not kill" or "Thou shall not murder" is a pretty major discrepancy to me. Here, one word makes a huge impact on the actual message. Is killing always wrong, or is it ok in self defense? Contrary to what you think, a simple typo CAN change the message. We'd need other copies aroudn the same age to really compare, since later copies may have all "standardized" on the same message, even though that chosen standard is not what the older texts said.
Just because they aren't in everyone's Wal-Mart bibles doesn't mean that they aren't studied, just that most Christians and the early church doubted that they came from God.
So, how exactly DO you decide if the books in question are the word of god or not? You can say they are studied all you want, but if the religion doesn't accept them as word of god, then it calls into question just how they decide what is or isn't the word of god. That doesn't sound like god then, it sounds like man making the story he wants to control others.
Ya, because you're a twit. None of those can be exploited in a browser..Net code from a browser is sandboxed by default. The second link requires an administrator to work. The third is an advisory about THE VERY ISSUE WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE.
How is that immediate harm and why do you think we had no danger from terrorist despite no less the 20 terrorist plots on American soil being foiled by the government within the last 8 years and the people being tried and convicted?
Losing my protection against unreasonable search isn't immediate harm? Oh, and none of those plots foiled were done so using the "new tools," it was all done with laws in place prior to 9/11. I suggest you do some research.
So if I tell 10 people to kill your family and they do it, I should be completely innocent of those crimes right? If I tell 5 people to rape you mom while you are forced to watch with your dad dismembered and spread around you, and they do it, I'm innocent because I didn't participate right?
Oh right because people are mindless sheep that blindly do whatever they are told, and therefore are not responsible for their own actions, you are. Stop with your garbage pleas to emotion, its incredibly transparent. To fully answer you question, I would blame the retards that actually listened to you, since they should no better. I'm going to go do something just become someone tells me to, sorry that you have no will of your own though.
The courts also said at one time that seperate but equal was fine and dandy.
you recording an image of your girlfriend pissing on my chest was never part of the conversation around the first amendment. It was all about political speech. You have to derive the intent before you can ascertain the meaning.
I'd like to see records of their discussion. Posting stories about a child molester has nothing to do with political speech, yet its protected as well.
Again, pay fucking attention.... Shit are you even trying to communicate or are you just fucking trolling? That statement had nothing to do with sending something through the mail, it nothing more then an acknowledgment that your rights end where they interfere with or deprive me of mine.
Oh, I'm sorry, I actually read the fucking article, dipshit. You know, the one this thread is about, where people are being jailed for sending obscene material over the internet AND THROUGH THE MAIL. My rights end when they interfere with yours? Please explain how something YOU NEVER SEE interferes with your rights? And you say I'm trolling?
Where? Where did I say the first amendment should be limited. The entire post, both of them, is nothing but an explanation to how it is limited and why it is wrong with a little what needs to be done to fix it. I'm not sure if english is you first language but you need to start reading what you are replying to a little better. You have confused yourself and take specifics as well as the entire post out of context and the only way I can explain that would be either you are trolling or extremely stupid. After reading your other reply, I'm going to guess a little of both.
You've made it clear you believe the first amendment only applies to political speech. To me, that's limiting it, because it certainly doesn't contain the words "political speech" anywhere... simply speech. Don't call me stupid when you aren't articulating yourself very well.
No, they aren't slowing down because they're reminded what happens in an accident, they're slowing down to see destruction and maybe some bodies. Just like people will gather around a burning building to watch it burn down.
If they REALLY were feeling that they need to drive safer, they wouldn't be looking to the SIDE instead of the car IN FRONT of them.
Actually, this is addressed by someone in another thread as well. He/she pointed out that, unlike most urban bike lanes, car lanes are usually designed so that any parallel parking spots are far enough to the side that the car door can be opened without sticking out into traffic.
I take it you haven't really been in any city before.
Also, the responsibility of the person driving the moving car isn't absolute (of course this, probably, varies state-by-state).
Heh... dream on. If you can find me a state that doesn't consider this a hit and run (assuming you just leave and don't leave information), I'd like to see.
Remember, by opening the door, the person in the parked car is moving too and is responsible for that action.
However, the parked car is still in park, thus its the fault of the moving car.
A car door can be opened so fast that it is, literally, impossible for even the most conservative/observant driver to respond in time to avoid hitting it. Most state laws are written to be able to take that into account.
By all means, show me the laws.
Of course, even in those states, much of that kind of stuff is defendant on the attitude/personal opinions of the officer that shows up to deal with the accident. Here in Illinois, I had an officer explain to me that the law doesn't protect you from responsibility if you put part if your car in the way of oncoming traffic, assuming that the traffic has right of way.
This shows nothing except that, unsuprisingly, the cops don't know the law. They are cops, not lawyers. There's a law in nearly every state which reads "its your responsiblity to avoid an accident." That means, even if you have right of way, you can't just hit the car in your way. Its the drivers responsiblity to avoid the accident... and in the case of a parked car, there is no driver.
Uh, yeah. If you're eating thousands of extra calories a day, there's numerous reasons you can't exercise your way out; for one thing, you probably aren't physically capable of doing much exercise.
No, you're always physically capable of it. I guess you've never seen Biggest Loser? Its just that people are lazy.
Even if you don't burn any more calories per day, having a pound of muscle is better than having a pound of fat.
I never debated that; but don't pretend that those extra pounds of muscle will allow you to have a shitty diet.
You A) still (yes, still) are ignoring 2/3 of the funding source I mentioned
Such as what? You've speculated where other funding might come from, you've not shown a single thing that backs you up that, even if those other sources do fund, that they are in any way significant overall.
B) moving the goalposts
You're the one trying to link funding to right to access. My statement is this, because you clearly can't read: roads are for autos, period. I don't care who funded what, they are built for cars, end of story.
C) have yet to propose any coherent allowed-use policy based on relative funding of roads
I'm not in favor of use based on funding. That's your nonsense argument. I don't get to use an F16 my taxes pay for either.
D) haven't shown that gas or other use based funding sources are "the most significant" funding sources for any roads
You haven't shown they aren't.
E) haven't yet shown that bicycle usage is out of proportion considering the average contribution of bicyclists from non-use based funding sources.
I'm not the one saying they have a right to the road because they helped pay for it. That's a shit argument. Roads are for autos, and that's it. The fact that you pay taxes is irrelevent, however MOST OF THE FUNDING DOES COME FROM FUEL TAX.
Goddamn when did the US become filled with retards like you?
What you can't do is cause immediate harm because of baseless accusations or statements.
Which is exactly what the US government did; claimed it needed "tools" to fight terrorists, which we were never in any real danger from and immediately harmed our rights.
I think maybe you are concept hoping and not seeing the details because of what you want to see.
I see the details, its not the speech thats the problem, its the results. You punish people for causing harm, not because of the words they said.
You need to not view everything in your own little world of nothing more then you can conceive. The first amendment was put into the constitution to protect political discourse after many of the founding fathers found themselves wanted dead or alive for speaking against the crown either in person or in their writings.
The first amendment is brought to all forms of speech because all forms of speech to some extent have influence on society, politics, and so on. But you should really read the rest of what I said.
Its brought to all forms of speech because it doesn't explicity say its limited only to political speech. I did read what you said, and it has no bearing here.
Your neighbor shouldn't until such time as you push it onto them, then they have a say in how loud, when and so on.
WTF are you talking about? Buying a movie online or through the mail isn't pushing speech on anyone. Nor does any of the censorship going on here.
With regards to the rest of your post, you start off saying you think the first amendment should be limited.. then decry how its done.
Are you saying two drives of the same batch are going to fail WITHIN THE TIME IT TAKES TO REBUILD THE RAID?
And yet, we had exactly this happen. Actually, the second disk failed when the system attempted to reboot after noticing the array was degraded. Two disks failed within seconds of each other.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry you think I'm a nut. My belief is belief, yes. But its also grounded on logic and reasonability.
No, its grounded in a fairy tail, much like the stories of Zeus and other greek gods, or the gods of any number of ancient cultures.
I know it appears to be illogical in that I'm trying to argue from within a particular system of belief instead of arguing from outside the system to attempt to prove my point. But it actually is more logically correct to argue from the standpoint of internal consistency given that I actually do believe that God is really capable of total sovereignty. There is certainly more evidence than just the Bible to corroborate the existence of Jesus and his actions (Josephus, archeological clues, even the Koran). But because I believe that God is really capable of proving His own existence I rely most on the Bible to describe the truth.
You're right, its not logical. Its ciruclar reasoning. God exists because you believe he exists. There's no evidence of anything in the bible, other then storytellers then, like now, take reality to base their story in. Fallout 3 is based in reality, that doesnt mean its true. Its a story, with some basis in reality.
Please, show me evidence that jesus turned water into wine, or bread into fish. Surely there was the equivolent of a news paper back then.. surely there must be something other than the bible. If god is capable of proving he exists, why has he not done so for me? Oh I know, I choose to ignore it. What a very convient response.
The version that most closely approximates the earliest manuscripts that most consistently agree. As far as English translations go, most scholars would agree that its either New American Standard Bible (NASB) or the English Standard Version (ESV). It turns out that there really aren't that many inconsistencies amongst the different copies we have access to now-a-days. Most of the differences are things like "the Lord Jesus Christ" vs. "Jesus Christ the Lord" it counts as a difference, but its really not meaningfully different. If you're serious about examining this topic, and I hope you are, take a listen to this presentation by Dr. Dan Wallace. It's excellent. Very academic from one of the world's leading scholars.
Theres plenty on Wikipedia about the problems with the bible, and they are not insignificant as you claim. Again I point out the whole "do not murder vs. kill." Oh, and lets not forget that Jews don't believe the New Testiment because they claim god said the original covenant was eternal. So, how exactly are we to know? Is god a liar? He knows everything, so he knew when the first covenant was given that it really wouldn't be eternal. Oh, and lets not forget that Asia never had anything like the wests concept of a god.
Actually the main reason I believe in God is because there is an empty tomb where the body of Jesus was initially laid.
Oh, you're certain that after 2000 years we located the actual tomb? We KNOW that it was a tomb for a guy named jesus?
Its empty because He rose from the dead which sort of serves as a receipt of payment for our sins, thus satisfying God's righteous wrath against those sins.
Well, it could be because we don't know where the tomb actually is. It could be that the disiples took it. It could be that the romans took it. It could be that an animal took it. It could be that everyone returned to a different location.
Now if you're going to try and make the "the disciples stole the body" argument, I'm sad to say that the evidence is quite stacked against that one. (1) they were a rag-tag group of laborers who were dispersed and scared when their leader was killed and had no ability or courage to try and 'rescue his body'
Oh, well, that evidence is overwhelming. Give me a break, you just accept that nonsense as truth, and even offer it as evidence? Really, if you're going to say "oh well they were scared and ran" and say that its the ONLY way events co
Funny, because the location bar and bookmarks are useless for me.
Oh, and yes, Flash crashing FF is fairly common. Just because its something YOU don't use doesn't mean its not common. Try doing some googling, plenty of people have the flash plugin crashing firefox.
Plugins shouldn't crash the browser, EVER.
Same with Firefox: the end-user features are selling points for the mass of users, whereas technical features are hard for anyone but geeks to get excited about except in an abstract sense.
Um, the browser NOT crashing when flash crashes is something any user can get excited about.
The problem with something like process separation isn't that it's trivial, quite the opposite, it's very hard and this serves as a barrier to spending a great deal of time on a feature that only a very few people will care about.
It was added from IE7 to 8, and there wasn't that long of a delay there. Oh, and a browser NOT crashing is something ALOT of people will care about.
Way to miss the point.
No commercial program on earth takes advantage of more than two cores, not even the high-end drafting programs on mirrored quad Xeons
Huh? MS Sql Server certainly does.
Yes, but the rules had to be changed, and it was technically a flaw in Flash that worked (and supposedly would have worked against any OS with Flash, and DEP turned off). http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=993
Except there seem to be other parts that go back to any killing is wrong. If it were a single verse, as you claim, I doubt we'd have scholars actively debating this point. It would be a settled matter, but its not. Why is that?
Heh... so I guess the Word of God flowed through King James then huh? And whatever changes he made are now the Word of God. Bleck. So, even if what you say is true, how do we know which version of the Bible is his word?
Might as well believe in the tooth fairy as far as I'm concerned. You have just as much evidence the fairy exists as you do god.
You sound like a nut that believes because you want to believe.
So do you have anything substancal to say, other than posting links that are irrelevent, or linking to some other users belief?
Its not a flame war; you're just trying to spread fud. I guess Linux fanbois haven't kept up with MS, and are doomed to point out critisms from the 90s. That's ok, believe what you want. I have a feeling that you're a twit... as it the dumbass /. user twitter. You're just about as informed as he was..
What major discrepancies? Yes, there have been a few changes over the years by different translators, typos, etc. But I don't think any of them could be considered major. There are many different ways to translate things from any language. And there weren't any copiers back when the first books first came out. Yes, we can't pretty much be guaranteed that Paul's letters that are in the bible differ slightly from those Paul himself wrote.
Well, the debate between if the commandment is "Thou shall not kill" or "Thou shall not murder" is a pretty major discrepancy to me. Here, one word makes a huge impact on the actual message. Is killing always wrong, or is it ok in self defense? Contrary to what you think, a simple typo CAN change the message. We'd need other copies aroudn the same age to really compare, since later copies may have all "standardized" on the same message, even though that chosen standard is not what the older texts said.
Just because they aren't in everyone's Wal-Mart bibles doesn't mean that they aren't studied, just that most Christians and the early church doubted that they came from God.
So, how exactly DO you decide if the books in question are the word of god or not? You can say they are studied all you want, but if the religion doesn't accept them as word of god, then it calls into question just how they decide what is or isn't the word of god. That doesn't sound like god then, it sounds like man making the story he wants to control others.
A passionate nut is still a nut.
Ya, because you're a twit. None of those can be exploited in a browser. .Net code from a browser is sandboxed by default. The second link requires an administrator to work. The third is an advisory about THE VERY ISSUE WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE.
STFU, troll.
Oh ok, thank god for michael moore, his films are what Americans live and die by!
I can honestly say I know NOBODY that watched that film.
Given a recent CNN article about how Americans CONTINUE to get fatter, I'd say his film had zero impact.
How is that immediate harm and why do you think we had no danger from terrorist despite no less the 20 terrorist plots on American soil being foiled by the government within the last 8 years and the people being tried and convicted?
Losing my protection against unreasonable search isn't immediate harm? Oh, and none of those plots foiled were done so using the "new tools," it was all done with laws in place prior to 9/11. I suggest you do some research.
So if I tell 10 people to kill your family and they do it, I should be completely innocent of those crimes right? If I tell 5 people to rape you mom while you are forced to watch with your dad dismembered and spread around you, and they do it, I'm innocent because I didn't participate right?
Oh right because people are mindless sheep that blindly do whatever they are told, and therefore are not responsible for their own actions, you are. Stop with your garbage pleas to emotion, its incredibly transparent. To fully answer you question, I would blame the retards that actually listened to you, since they should no better. I'm going to go do something just become someone tells me to, sorry that you have no will of your own though.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html
Get a fucking clue bat then proceed to beat yourself half to death with it.
Ya, and you call me a troll?
That's what the courts say
The courts also said at one time that seperate but equal was fine and dandy.
you recording an image of your girlfriend pissing on my chest was never part of the conversation around the first amendment. It was all about political speech. You have to derive the intent before you can ascertain the meaning.
I'd like to see records of their discussion. Posting stories about a child molester has nothing to do with political speech, yet its protected as well.
Again, pay fucking attention.... Shit are you even trying to communicate or are you just fucking trolling? That statement had nothing to do with sending something through the mail, it nothing more then an acknowledgment that your rights end where they interfere with or deprive me of mine.
Oh, I'm sorry, I actually read the fucking article, dipshit. You know, the one this thread is about, where people are being jailed for sending obscene material over the internet AND THROUGH THE MAIL. My rights end when they interfere with yours? Please explain how something YOU NEVER SEE interferes with your rights? And you say I'm trolling?
Where? Where did I say the first amendment should be limited. The entire post, both of them, is nothing but an explanation to how it is limited and why it is wrong with a little what needs to be done to fix it. I'm not sure if english is you first language but you need to start reading what you are replying to a little better. You have confused yourself and take specifics as well as the entire post out of context and the only way I can explain that would be either you are trolling or extremely stupid. After reading your other reply, I'm going to guess a little of both.
You've made it clear you believe the first amendment only applies to political speech. To me, that's limiting it, because it certainly doesn't contain the words "political speech" anywhere... simply speech. Don't call me stupid when you aren't articulating yourself very well.
Ya, why wouldn't one get used to seeing that, if they see it everyday?
No, they aren't slowing down because they're reminded what happens in an accident, they're slowing down to see destruction and maybe some bodies. Just like people will gather around a burning building to watch it burn down.
If they REALLY were feeling that they need to drive safer, they wouldn't be looking to the SIDE instead of the car IN FRONT of them.
Another reason to not use ActiveX and NOT use an OS that allows executables to do anything with the kernel via an untrusted WEB PAGE.
Um, what? This has nothing to do with the kernel.
This is another reason NOT to use Vista.
How so? Vista is secure from this, its XP thats vunerable.
Where are my mod points?
It seems they got lost about a month or so ago and never came back.
With posts like this, I can see why.
Every time I've gone to a pharmacist, they simply hand me my prescriptions and ask if I have any questions about how to take my medication.
Yes, and if you fail to take that oppurtunity to know more, its your own fault. That's why they are there!
Actually, this is addressed by someone in another thread as well. He/she pointed out that, unlike most urban bike lanes, car lanes are usually designed so that any parallel parking spots are far enough to the side that the car door can be opened without sticking out into traffic.
I take it you haven't really been in any city before.
Also, the responsibility of the person driving the moving car isn't absolute (of course this, probably, varies state-by-state).
Heh... dream on. If you can find me a state that doesn't consider this a hit and run (assuming you just leave and don't leave information), I'd like to see.
Remember, by opening the door, the person in the parked car is moving too and is responsible for that action.
However, the parked car is still in park, thus its the fault of the moving car.
A car door can be opened so fast that it is, literally, impossible for even the most conservative/observant driver to respond in time to avoid hitting it. Most state laws are written to be able to take that into account.
By all means, show me the laws.
Of course, even in those states, much of that kind of stuff is defendant on the attitude/personal opinions of the officer that shows up to deal with the accident. Here in Illinois, I had an officer explain to me that the law doesn't protect you from responsibility if you put part if your car in the way of oncoming traffic, assuming that the traffic has right of way.
This shows nothing except that, unsuprisingly, the cops don't know the law. They are cops, not lawyers. There's a law in nearly every state which reads "its your responsiblity to avoid an accident." That means, even if you have right of way, you can't just hit the car in your way. Its the drivers responsiblity to avoid the accident... and in the case of a parked car, there is no driver.
No, I'm pushing to get the bikes off the roads all together.
Uh, yeah. If you're eating thousands of extra calories a day, there's numerous reasons you can't exercise your way out; for one thing, you probably aren't physically capable of doing much exercise.
No, you're always physically capable of it. I guess you've never seen Biggest Loser? Its just that people are lazy.
Even if you don't burn any more calories per day, having a pound of muscle is better than having a pound of fat.
I never debated that; but don't pretend that those extra pounds of muscle will allow you to have a shitty diet.
You A) still (yes, still) are ignoring 2/3 of the funding source I mentioned
Such as what? You've speculated where other funding might come from, you've not shown a single thing that backs you up that, even if those other sources do fund, that they are in any way significant overall.
B) moving the goalposts
You're the one trying to link funding to right to access. My statement is this, because you clearly can't read: roads are for autos, period. I don't care who funded what, they are built for cars, end of story.
C) have yet to propose any coherent allowed-use policy based on relative funding of roads
I'm not in favor of use based on funding. That's your nonsense argument. I don't get to use an F16 my taxes pay for either.
D) haven't shown that gas or other use based funding sources are "the most significant" funding sources for any roads
You haven't shown they aren't.
E) haven't yet shown that bicycle usage is out of proportion considering the average contribution of bicyclists from non-use based funding sources.
I'm not the one saying they have a right to the road because they helped pay for it. That's a shit argument. Roads are for autos, and that's it. The fact that you pay taxes is irrelevent, however MOST OF THE FUNDING DOES COME FROM FUEL TAX.
Goddamn when did the US become filled with retards like you?
What you can't do is cause immediate harm because of baseless accusations or statements.
Which is exactly what the US government did; claimed it needed "tools" to fight terrorists, which we were never in any real danger from and immediately harmed our rights.
I think maybe you are concept hoping and not seeing the details because of what you want to see.
I see the details, its not the speech thats the problem, its the results. You punish people for causing harm, not because of the words they said.
You need to not view everything in your own little world of nothing more then you can conceive. The first amendment was put into the constitution to protect political discourse after many of the founding fathers found themselves wanted dead or alive for speaking against the crown either in person or in their writings.
The first amendment is brought to all forms of speech because all forms of speech to some extent have influence on society, politics, and so on. But you should really read the rest of what I said.
Its brought to all forms of speech because it doesn't explicity say its limited only to political speech. I did read what you said, and it has no bearing here.
Your neighbor shouldn't until such time as you push it onto them, then they have a say in how loud, when and so on.
WTF are you talking about? Buying a movie online or through the mail isn't pushing speech on anyone. Nor does any of the censorship going on here.
With regards to the rest of your post, you start off saying you think the first amendment should be limited.. then decry how its done.
Are you saying two drives of the same batch are going to fail WITHIN THE TIME IT TAKES TO REBUILD THE RAID?
And yet, we had exactly this happen. Actually, the second disk failed when the system attempted to reboot after noticing the array was degraded. Two disks failed within seconds of each other.