The Mongols outdid other conquerors via sheer volume of conquests, but the damage to a region (in terms of population and property destruction) was comparatively light for the era when measured on a per city basis, especially in comparison to contemporary Europeans.
Look though history, the only time Muslims, Christians and Jews lived peacefully together was under a Muslim government.
The Mongols were actually pretty good about keeping their diverse religious groups in harmony. They had those three and some others in fairly large numbers.
Who decided you weren't being taken advantage of at 18? does something magical happen on the last night of your 17th year that renders you mature?
It's easy to say that a 6 year old is unable to consent and a 25 year old is able to. So we move in from those extremes and draw an arbitrary line somewhere at the higher end of the 'maybe' pile. Ultimately you've either got to pick a dividing line or hand discretionary power to police/prosecutors. I think both solutions have crapiness involved but the first IMHO is better. You can argue that the line is in the wrong place but that doesn't remove the problem where one day you're able to consent when you weren't yesterday.
yeah my first thought was perl, ruby, python, tcl... really, ANYTHING that isn't a batch script. And I say this as someone who has written far more batch than I'd like to have.
I agree absolutely that you should have the right, but I read the original as saying you should not swear at police, which is a statement I'm ok with. Overall it sounds more like we're disagreeing on what he said rather than anything else.
The rest I agree with you on, but I can give 'should' to the GP. You believe that you *should* swear at police? I'm not saying situations will never arise where it's called for, but I wouldn't accept it as a default rule.
At least California's actions (banning texas books) only affects California.
That's about as true as suggesting that Texas textbooks standards don't affect you either. California is a bigger market than Texas. If they have conflicting standards, publishers will have books that adhere to one standard or the other (and probably a version for each of them). If you have a different standard you want pushed, you'll need to hope NY or Florida or some other populous state has a standard close to what you want.
All that shows is that all politicians *claim* to be devout Christians
I'm familiar with the problem -- I think the West Wing summed it best with Alda's character when he said:
"I want to warn everyone in the press and all the voters out there if you demand expressions of religious faith from politicians, you are just begging to be lied to. They won't all lie to you but a lot of them will. And it will be the easiest lie they ever had to tell to get your votes."
Calling the United States a "Christian" nation is demonstrably false.
What would the US a Christian nation (or not one)? Is there a clear definition of the term? While we don't have a state religion and freedom to practice your religion is one of our core precepts, more than 3/4 of the nation is Christian. All of our presidents have been Christians and the majority of the Supreme Court and both houses of Congress are Christians, which would make us "a nation governed by Christians", which is one definition I've heard. Your statement might be right for all I know, but first we need to have a good definition of that term.
Texas is such a huge market for textbooks that the changes made to accommodate the their standards will make it very hard for smaller, more sane markets to obtain decent textbooks at a reasonable price.
This part of it has always puzzled me.
California is a bigger market, and New York is only a little bit smaller. Combined they have more than twice the population of Texas, and neither state seems likely to subscribe to Texas' version of events. Why is Texas dictating standards to the nation at large?
If I do set them down, I usually notice that they are missing (and also am in the habit of patting myself down to make sure they are there before leaving the house etc).
I do this as well. And every so often while I'm driving, I panic and wonder where I left my keys.
Re:To everyone complaining about the positive revi
on
The Laidoff Ninja
·
· Score: 1
Probably more like a golf club than a hockey stick. Minimal at the low end with a bell curve at the high end.
Re:To everyone complaining about the positive revi
on
The Laidoff Ninja
·
· Score: 1
Think of it as an edge case rather than a non-existent one. Poor reviews are rare, but exist.
It's a sinister campaign. Since we heavily outnumber you, we just need to convert a critical mass to our heathenistic ways and then the rest of you will die out over time. Bwa. Ha. Ha.
One of the arguments is usually that prostitution is frequently forced prostitution. In my initial post though I specifically meant voluntary. I couldn't say what kind of prostitution bigbird was talking about though (I never thought I'd get a chance to say that).
2. Money ends up in the hands of organized crime as it relates to vice crimes only because these activities are illegal, which inevitably creates a black market and high risk/profit scenarios, which attracts organized crime. There is nothing inherent to vice crimes that attracts organized crime (other than the fact that they are have been criminalized).
I'm responding in reverse order, mostly because I feel that your 1st point is the stronger one. As far as this one, yes, my argument more or less agrees with this idea. What you've said is a somewhat clearer version of my original "When the law is not a deterrent it basically means that all the revenue is going to end up in the hands of organized crime.", but they express the same idea.
1. You name some activities that people are going to do whether they are illegal or not. Your statement encompasses many currently legal activities as well, such as consensual sex, riding a bicycle, going for a walk in the evening, changing your children's diapers, and the list goes on and on. Tax all of these activities too? Or just the ones you find distasteful?
Now this is a stronger point, though I'm advocating taxation over illegality for things that are currently illegal and not for all activities in general. Also, I'm ultimately a pragmatist. I believe that embracing and taxing activities you cannot control is preferable to uselessly fighting them. I don't necessarily see that as ideal though, simply better than what we have.
Again you can't stop murders from happening so why not tax it?
This depends on how you mean that. If this means that you can't stop ALL murders, but we acknowledge that murder being illegal still stops some non-trivial percent, then we still gain from murder being illegal.
But, if we were to take a hypothetical case where there would be no difference in murder rates regardless of whether or not it's illegal... in that situation, I would say yes, legalize and tax it. You might feel that murder is abhorrent (and I agree), but I would also ask in that scenario, what do we accomplish by keeping it illegal and not taxing it?
Aside, I think a society for which that statement is true is screwed beyond usefulness, but that's a bit separate from what I'm arguing.
I do wish people would stop using the taxation argument about legalizing it. If the only reason to legalize an activity is to tax it then it really shouldn't be legal anyways. Take for example murder, lets legalize it and tax it right? No. There are good reasons it is illegal.
The taxation argument typically applies for things where people are going to do it whether it's legal or not, and generally fall in the victimless crimes category (gambling, pot, prostitution, etc). When the law is not a deterrent it basically means that all the revenue is going to end up in the hands of organized crime. If you can't stop people from doing something, you might as well allow it instead and take a slice of the pie.
The moral aspect of the issue is actually irrelevant. Certainly murder is something that organized crime is involved in, but it is my belief that the illegality of murder is in fact a deterrent for it. While most people wouldn't do it because they believe it's flat out wrong, there are people who would probably do it if they thought they could get away with it.
I had assumed it was 6% of the house profits. Which means that if running an online casino has better margins by at least 6% than a brick & mortar one, this still works out for the casinos.
the USA is or course a land of opposites, where opinions are often divided around the 50% mark
This being a totally separate discussion, I figured I'd do it in a different post.
I'm convinced that for a large portion of our population, someone's opinion on an issue follows this thought process: I belong to party X. What do other people in party X think about this? Okay, that's what I think too.
Any time I hear about polling numbers on a brand new issue where the Dems/GOP haven't each figured out which side of it they're on, the numbers are nearly identical for each group (ie, if 70% of the US approves, it's almost exactly 70% of R and 70% of D). Poll on the same issue 3 months later and it's heavily divided by party lines.
Slashdot Mirror
The Mongols outdid other conquerors via sheer volume of conquests, but the damage to a region (in terms of population and property destruction) was comparatively light for the era when measured on a per city basis, especially in comparison to contemporary Europeans.
Look though history, the only time Muslims, Christians and Jews lived peacefully together was under a Muslim government.
The Mongols were actually pretty good about keeping their diverse religious groups in harmony. They had those three and some others in fairly large numbers.
However, the main driver for the change in this policy seems to be the 800-million-pound
Gorilla? Please be gorilla. That's a big gorilla.
cost.
Disappointing close to that sentence.
Who decided you weren't being taken advantage of at 18? does something magical happen on the last night of your 17th year that renders you mature?
It's easy to say that a 6 year old is unable to consent and a 25 year old is able to. So we move in from those extremes and draw an arbitrary line somewhere at the higher end of the 'maybe' pile. Ultimately you've either got to pick a dividing line or hand discretionary power to police/prosecutors. I think both solutions have crapiness involved but the first IMHO is better. You can argue that the line is in the wrong place but that doesn't remove the problem where one day you're able to consent when you weren't yesterday.
yeah my first thought was perl, ruby, python, tcl... really, ANYTHING that isn't a batch script. And I say this as someone who has written far more batch than I'd like to have.
Anyone caught conflating has to clean it up.
I agree absolutely that you should have the right, but I read the original as saying you should not swear at police, which is a statement I'm ok with. Overall it sounds more like we're disagreeing on what he said rather than anything else.
nor should you.
Incorrect.
The rest I agree with you on, but I can give 'should' to the GP. You believe that you *should* swear at police? I'm not saying situations will never arise where it's called for, but I wouldn't accept it as a default rule.
At least California's actions (banning texas books) only affects California.
That's about as true as suggesting that Texas textbooks standards don't affect you either. California is a bigger market than Texas. If they have conflicting standards, publishers will have books that adhere to one standard or the other (and probably a version for each of them). If you have a different standard you want pushed, you'll need to hope NY or Florida or some other populous state has a standard close to what you want.
All that shows is that all politicians *claim* to be devout Christians
I'm familiar with the problem -- I think the West Wing summed it best with Alda's character when he said:
"I want to warn everyone in the press and all the voters out there if you demand expressions of religious faith from politicians, you are just begging to be lied to. They won't all lie to you but a lot of them will. And it will be the easiest lie they ever had to tell to get your votes."
Calling the United States a "Christian" nation is demonstrably false.
What would the US a Christian nation (or not one)? Is there a clear definition of the term? While we don't have a state religion and freedom to practice your religion is one of our core precepts, more than 3/4 of the nation is Christian. All of our presidents have been Christians and the majority of the Supreme Court and both houses of Congress are Christians, which would make us "a nation governed by Christians", which is one definition I've heard. Your statement might be right for all I know, but first we need to have a good definition of that term.
Texas is such a huge market for textbooks that the changes made to accommodate the their standards will make it very hard for smaller, more sane markets to obtain decent textbooks at a reasonable price.
This part of it has always puzzled me.
California is a bigger market, and New York is only a little bit smaller. Combined they have more than twice the population of Texas, and neither state seems likely to subscribe to Texas' version of events. Why is Texas dictating standards to the nation at large?
with wiki being both a very recent neologism, and also, a loanword from Hawaiian.
It's not a loanword. English stole it and has no plans to give it back. It's a theftword.
Although on further thought it's not stolen as Hawaiian still has the word... it's a copyright infringeword.
If I do set them down, I usually notice that they are missing (and also am in the habit of patting myself down to make sure they are there before leaving the house etc).
I do this as well. And every so often while I'm driving, I panic and wonder where I left my keys.
Probably more like a golf club than a hockey stick. Minimal at the low end with a bell curve at the high end.
Think of it as an edge case rather than a non-existent one. Poor reviews are rare, but exist.
It's a sinister campaign. Since we heavily outnumber you, we just need to convert a critical mass to our heathenistic ways and then the rest of you will die out over time. Bwa. Ha. Ha.
The Wikipedia page states FITS was created in '81. How does that translate to more than 40 years of use?
In some years they REALLY used it.
My reply was supposed to be to bigbird.
It was. I just felt like chiming in. I think we're largely agreed on this particular topic though.
One of the arguments is usually that prostitution is frequently forced prostitution. In my initial post though I specifically meant voluntary. I couldn't say what kind of prostitution bigbird was talking about though (I never thought I'd get a chance to say that).
2. Money ends up in the hands of organized crime as it relates to vice crimes only because these activities are illegal, which inevitably creates a black market and high risk/profit scenarios, which attracts organized crime. There is nothing inherent to vice crimes that attracts organized crime (other than the fact that they are have been criminalized).
I'm responding in reverse order, mostly because I feel that your 1st point is the stronger one. As far as this one, yes, my argument more or less agrees with this idea. What you've said is a somewhat clearer version of my original "When the law is not a deterrent it basically means that all the revenue is going to end up in the hands of organized crime.", but they express the same idea.
1. You name some activities that people are going to do whether they are illegal or not. Your statement encompasses many currently legal activities as well, such as consensual sex, riding a bicycle, going for a walk in the evening, changing your children's diapers, and the list goes on and on. Tax all of these activities too? Or just the ones you find distasteful?
Now this is a stronger point, though I'm advocating taxation over illegality for things that are currently illegal and not for all activities in general. Also, I'm ultimately a pragmatist. I believe that embracing and taxing activities you cannot control is preferable to uselessly fighting them. I don't necessarily see that as ideal though, simply better than what we have.
Again you can't stop murders from happening so why not tax it?
This depends on how you mean that. If this means that you can't stop ALL murders, but we acknowledge that murder being illegal still stops some non-trivial percent, then we still gain from murder being illegal.
But, if we were to take a hypothetical case where there would be no difference in murder rates regardless of whether or not it's illegal... in that situation, I would say yes, legalize and tax it. You might feel that murder is abhorrent (and I agree), but I would also ask in that scenario, what do we accomplish by keeping it illegal and not taxing it?
Aside, I think a society for which that statement is true is screwed beyond usefulness, but that's a bit separate from what I'm arguing.
I do wish people would stop using the taxation argument about legalizing it. If the only reason to legalize an activity is to tax it then it really shouldn't be legal anyways. Take for example murder, lets legalize it and tax it right? No. There are good reasons it is illegal.
The taxation argument typically applies for things where people are going to do it whether it's legal or not, and generally fall in the victimless crimes category (gambling, pot, prostitution, etc). When the law is not a deterrent it basically means that all the revenue is going to end up in the hands of organized crime. If you can't stop people from doing something, you might as well allow it instead and take a slice of the pie.
The moral aspect of the issue is actually irrelevant. Certainly murder is something that organized crime is involved in, but it is my belief that the illegality of murder is in fact a deterrent for it. While most people wouldn't do it because they believe it's flat out wrong, there are people who would probably do it if they thought they could get away with it.
I had assumed it was 6% of the house profits. Which means that if running an online casino has better margins by at least 6% than a brick & mortar one, this still works out for the casinos.
the USA is or course a land of opposites, where opinions are often divided around the 50% mark
This being a totally separate discussion, I figured I'd do it in a different post.
I'm convinced that for a large portion of our population, someone's opinion on an issue follows this thought process:
I belong to party X.
What do other people in party X think about this?
Okay, that's what I think too.
Any time I hear about polling numbers on a brand new issue where the Dems/GOP haven't each figured out which side of it they're on, the numbers are nearly identical for each group (ie, if 70% of the US approves, it's almost exactly 70% of R and 70% of D). Poll on the same issue 3 months later and it's heavily divided by party lines.