"The biggest problem is no one has ever given me an answer as to why my money has to go to pay the medical bills of my neighbor who smokes half a pack a day, or my neighbor on the other side who thinks it's funny to drink a case of beer each weekend by themselves."
Because it's a liberal progressive mentality bordering on socialistic/marxist ideals.
What would you do to help your mother/brother/sister/father?
Yes, they are my family
How about your next door neighbor you hang out with?
Perhaps. They are not my responsibility.
The guy in the next street, or the next town?
At what point do you draw the line and say that I am going to help these people and not those people?
I think that part of the US problem is more that in general this line is drawn closer to home compared to other people who draw it further out.
No. My family is my primary responsibility. I do not have the means to help anyone else at this point.
If I did have the means, I would make the decision of my own accord, and fight tooth and nail any attempt for someone else to make it for me, and enforce it at the point of a gun.
You people seem to think this is all some reasonable trade-off - it isn't. It is a direct assault on personal liberty, and the very ideas that this country was founded upon. To quote Patrick Henry:
What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
You underestimate the importance many American place on that simple concept - the idea that the individual has a God-given right to work for themselves, provide for their family, and dispose of their own possessions as they see fit.
Seems like this would be a simple one to figure out --- if a protester was arrested for assault with a bodily fluid, even if charges were not pressed, there should be a record.
As a hardcore libertarian and fiscal conservative, I agree with 75% of this. "No pre-existing conditions" is silly - it costs too much to insure people with terminal illnesses, for instance.
Yeah, there are some excellent cameras out there that aren't dSLRs for some uses. I have a Minolta Z3 that I bought my parents many years ago that I love. I used to carry a small camera myself, but I use my iPhone for random one-off stuff now.
I'm much less serious about photography than I used to be. I like hobbies with a positive cash flow, and while photography did that for me, it was a lot of time invested, a lot of cash on hand, but very little profit over time by the time I bought the equipment I needed to do it right.
These days I do vinyl signs and decals mostly, along with clean up the occasional virus.
Most photographers refer to a non-SLR digital camera as a "digicam" and a dSLR as a "digital camera", as a means of differentiating the two in conversation.
I agree, but I temper that in most online discussion. When the federal government confiscates over one third of my income each year, I am effectively working until April for zero pay.
I'm an Arkansan, and I consider myself well read on this topic.
Slavery was the popular cause for the war. If you read the resolutions passed by the individual states, most all of them cite the North's abolitionist movement as the reason for secession. In *most* of the Southern states, there was little debate as the the treatment of blacks, or their place in society (as chatel).
Still, slavery was not the *only* cause. The South (and for that matter, Lincoln) did not believe that the federal government had the constitutional authority to ban slavery. When they spoke up to that end, they found the federal government did not recognize their right to secede.
The root cause of the American Civil War was slavery - but the war wouldn't have happened if the federal government had not made it clear that secession would be viewed as insurrection.
This is why I empathize with the Confederacy. Slavery is repugnant, but so is an unconstitutional federal government, which is the legacy we have today from that era. There were other ways of successfully ending slavery, that did not involve killing a generation of young men and permanently polarizing the United States.
Female "circumcision" removes a functioning part of the person's body. It limits (or eliminates) enjoyment of sex, and is irreversible. In addition, the conditions under which it is done are horrible, resulting in much scarring and risk of infection. There are *no* medical benefits to this, not even ones you deem not worth the procedure.
Male circumcision - performed in a modern hospital setting - is more akin to piercing a child's ears. Yes, it is elective, and yes, it is basically a cosmetic procedure - but to compare it to the removal of the clitoris isn't rational.
I am a bit taken aback by this - not so much by your stance on circumcision, but by your anger at Judaism.
Most boys in the US are circumcised shortly after birth. As most Americans are Christians, there seems to be no real reason that we do this, other than tradition.
As an uncircumcised male, I certainly don't feel that I need to rush out and have it done. Still, mutilation may be a bit of a strong word. I have family members that were circumcised in their pre-teen years due to repeated infections, and there didn't seem to be an issue with that.
As part of the firearms community, there have been high profile cases dealing with machine guns, food products, and narcotics that have reached the community's radar, so to speak.
There was a guy a while back that made a Sten - a simple but effective submachinegun - in his basement and declared that it was exempt because it nor the materials used to make it ever crossed state lines. If I recall, the case was summarily dismissed after a decision in Raich, which was a similar situation, but with marijuana. Raich, in turn, built on Wickard v. Filburn, which makes my head hurt.
In Wickard, the court ruled that a commodity produced (grain) wholly inside a state, for personal consumption, could be regulated as interstate commerce because if it had not been produced, the consumer would have purchased it in interstate commerce. Raich takes the leap to say that this also applies when the interstate commerce of the product is illegal, as is the case with marijuana.
From a firearm's advocacy POV, this whole thing revolves around clearing out federal restrictions on firearms, such as the National Firearms Act of 1934. We are making progress in this arena today via direct challenge, though - first with DC v Heller, which affirmed the Second Amendment as an individual right, and now in McDonald v. Chicago, where we are seeking incorporation of this right against the states, either under the "privileges and immunities" clause or the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment. It looks like we're going to get it under "due process", but be denied under "P&I".
Apple is not preventing, nor can they legally prevent, developers from developing apps for their own iPhones or other people's iPhones. This is why there are many apps available for so called "jailbroken" iPhones.
Bullshit. They could invoke the DMCA again jailbreakers if they wanted - because they haven't, it has become a fairly accepted practice. That doesn't prevent them from from doing so in the future...
Perhaps I see this differently, as I play both sides of the field (as a user, and as an advertiser).
The privacy controls on Facebook are sufficient from my perspective. As a user, I can be confident that what I post will stay within my circle of friends. As an advertiser, I can target down to a few hundred people - but I cannot determine information on an individual.
It seems a good balance to me - though I would certainly try a different service if one is out there.
I run one of those news aggregator sites. It is very small, and its purpose is to stockpile news articles on a topic in one place, so they don't disappear and drop off the net. Yes, I've been copying articles verbatim, though at the very least I link to the host site first and foremost, and quote the article so that it is clear that I did not write the content.
As for ads, I have one Adsense block on there, and have made $8 in the 3 months the site has been up.
How do you propose balancing legitimate archival with the needs of the copyright owners? I think I have an equitable scheme in place, though I realize it may or may not be a legal one.
That's great, but the correct way to handle apps that slipped through the cracks would seem to be:
1) Contact that developers 2) Give them X weeks to rewrite the app to fit the standard 3) Expedite the approval process for effected apps 4) Update the API specification, removing any apps which have not yet been updated.
Instead, it appears that Apple immediately removed the apps from the AppStore. As an iPhone owner, this kind of.. abusive treatment of application developers and app owners is unacceptable.
Interesting. I have WifiFoFum, and use it for network troubleshooting and such - along with seeing if there is a decent hotspot before digging out my laptop in an unfamiliar place.
I'm curious to see how they treat users who have purchased rejected apps. What happens if I remove it, and want to re-download it? Do I get my money back?
So, you're so incapable of determining the veracity of what you're reading that you demand government get involved to restrict who can have access to news?
I've never understood the concept of a "press pass" in the first place.
If you're that inept, your AP at home is likely "Linksys", or perhaps you've used one in a coffee shop or something. The next time it sees that SSID, it connects automagically unless you turn it off.
Slashdot Mirror
selfish libertarians
You, sir, are too kind. Compliments such as this truly lighten a dark day.
"The biggest problem is no one has ever given me an answer as to why my money has to go to pay the medical bills of my neighbor who smokes half a pack a day, or my neighbor on the other side who thinks it's funny to drink a case of beer each weekend by themselves."
Because it's a liberal progressive mentality bordering on socialistic/marxist ideals.
What would you do to help your mother/brother/sister/father?
Yes, they are my family
How about your next door neighbor you hang out with?
Perhaps. They are not my responsibility.
The guy in the next street, or the next town?
At what point do you draw the line and say that I am going to help these people and not those people?
I think that part of the US problem is more that in general this line is drawn closer to home compared to other people who draw it further out.
No. My family is my primary responsibility. I do not have the means to help anyone else at this point.
If I did have the means, I would make the decision of my own accord, and fight tooth and nail any attempt for someone else to make it for me, and enforce it at the point of a gun.
You people seem to think this is all some reasonable trade-off - it isn't. It is a direct assault on personal liberty, and the very ideas that this country was founded upon. To quote Patrick Henry:
What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
You underestimate the importance many American place on that simple concept - the idea that the individual has a God-given right to work for themselves, provide for their family, and dispose of their own possessions as they see fit.
The problem is that you just tried to make the decision for me, and *ordered* me to pay $4k per year.
Fuck you. I'll pay the goddamned fine.
Seems like this would be a simple one to figure out --- if a protester was arrested for assault with a bodily fluid, even if charges were not pressed, there should be a record.
Prove it - see which on is telling the truth.
As a hardcore libertarian and fiscal conservative, I agree with 75% of this. "No pre-existing conditions" is silly - it costs too much to insure people with terminal illnesses, for instance.
Ouch.
I admit I've been out of the loop a few years, but that hurt. I got my primary income from photography for almost 5 years.
Yeah, there are some excellent cameras out there that aren't dSLRs for some uses. I have a Minolta Z3 that I bought my parents many years ago that I love. I used to carry a small camera myself, but I use my iPhone for random one-off stuff now.
I'm much less serious about photography than I used to be. I like hobbies with a positive cash flow, and while photography did that for me, it was a lot of time invested, a lot of cash on hand, but very little profit over time by the time I bought the equipment I needed to do it right.
These days I do vinyl signs and decals mostly, along with clean up the occasional virus.
Most photographers refer to a non-SLR digital camera as a "digicam" and a dSLR as a "digital camera", as a means of differentiating the two in conversation.
I agree, but I temper that in most online discussion. When the federal government confiscates over one third of my income each year, I am effectively working until April for zero pay.
How is that not slavery?
Try owning a handgun in the city of Chicago, or New York City.
I'm an Arkansan, and I consider myself well read on this topic.
Slavery was the popular cause for the war. If you read the resolutions passed by the individual states, most all of them cite the North's abolitionist movement as the reason for secession. In *most* of the Southern states, there was little debate as the the treatment of blacks, or their place in society (as chatel).
Still, slavery was not the *only* cause. The South (and for that matter, Lincoln) did not believe that the federal government had the constitutional authority to ban slavery. When they spoke up to that end, they found the federal government did not recognize their right to secede.
The root cause of the American Civil War was slavery - but the war wouldn't have happened if the federal government had not made it clear that secession would be viewed as insurrection.
This is why I empathize with the Confederacy. Slavery is repugnant, but so is an unconstitutional federal government, which is the legacy we have today from that era. There were other ways of successfully ending slavery, that did not involve killing a generation of young men and permanently polarizing the United States.
No, it appears that he may have read the text of the 3rd Amendment at some point.
That rules out Congress.
I think it's missing some parenthesis (it's been 5+ years since I wrote PHP), but yeah, pretty much.
And I knew it was pseudocode, I was just being a nerd.
Yes, mutilation is too strong a word.
Female "circumcision" removes a functioning part of the person's body. It limits (or eliminates) enjoyment of sex, and is irreversible. In addition, the conditions under which it is done are horrible, resulting in much scarring and risk of infection. There are *no* medical benefits to this, not even ones you deem not worth the procedure.
Male circumcision - performed in a modern hospital setting - is more akin to piercing a child's ears. Yes, it is elective, and yes, it is basically a cosmetic procedure - but to compare it to the removal of the clitoris isn't rational.
You wrote your malware detector in PHP?
This.
There is a science to optimizing cost vs. production costs vs. demand. For niche product, the consumer's cost is going to be high.
I hope eInk stay profitable, though - I think that color eInk displays with be very nice in a few years.
I am a bit taken aback by this - not so much by your stance on circumcision, but by your anger at Judaism.
Most boys in the US are circumcised shortly after birth. As most Americans are Christians, there seems to be no real reason that we do this, other than tradition.
As an uncircumcised male, I certainly don't feel that I need to rush out and have it done. Still, mutilation may be a bit of a strong word. I have family members that were circumcised in their pre-teen years due to repeated infections, and there didn't seem to be an issue with that.
As part of the firearms community, there have been high profile cases dealing with machine guns, food products, and narcotics that have reached the community's radar, so to speak.
There was a guy a while back that made a Sten - a simple but effective submachinegun - in his basement and declared that it was exempt because it nor the materials used to make it ever crossed state lines. If I recall, the case was summarily dismissed after a decision in Raich, which was a similar situation, but with marijuana. Raich, in turn, built on Wickard v. Filburn, which makes my head hurt.
In Wickard, the court ruled that a commodity produced (grain) wholly inside a state, for personal consumption, could be regulated as interstate commerce because if it had not been produced, the consumer would have purchased it in interstate commerce. Raich takes the leap to say that this also applies when the interstate commerce of the product is illegal, as is the case with marijuana.
From a firearm's advocacy POV, this whole thing revolves around clearing out federal restrictions on firearms, such as the National Firearms Act of 1934. We are making progress in this arena today via direct challenge, though - first with DC v Heller, which affirmed the Second Amendment as an individual right, and now in McDonald v. Chicago, where we are seeking incorporation of this right against the states, either under the "privileges and immunities" clause or the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment. It looks like we're going to get it under "due process", but be denied under "P&I".
Apple is not preventing, nor can they legally prevent, developers from developing apps for their own iPhones or other people's iPhones. This is why there are many apps available for so called "jailbroken" iPhones.
Bullshit. They could invoke the DMCA again jailbreakers if they wanted - because they haven't, it has become a fairly accepted practice. That doesn't prevent them from from doing so in the future...
Perhaps I see this differently, as I play both sides of the field (as a user, and as an advertiser).
The privacy controls on Facebook are sufficient from my perspective. As a user, I can be confident that what I post will stay within my circle of friends. As an advertiser, I can target down to a few hundred people - but I cannot determine information on an individual.
It seems a good balance to me - though I would certainly try a different service if one is out there.
I run one of those news aggregator sites. It is very small, and its purpose is to stockpile news articles on a topic in one place, so they don't disappear and drop off the net. Yes, I've been copying articles verbatim, though at the very least I link to the host site first and foremost, and quote the article so that it is clear that I did not write the content.
As for ads, I have one Adsense block on there, and have made $8 in the 3 months the site has been up.
How do you propose balancing legitimate archival with the needs of the copyright owners? I think I have an equitable scheme in place, though I realize it may or may not be a legal one.
That's great, but the correct way to handle apps that slipped through the cracks would seem to be:
1) Contact that developers
2) Give them X weeks to rewrite the app to fit the standard
3) Expedite the approval process for effected apps
4) Update the API specification, removing any apps which have not yet been updated.
Instead, it appears that Apple immediately removed the apps from the AppStore. As an iPhone owner, this kind of.. abusive treatment of application developers and app owners is unacceptable.
Interesting. I have WifiFoFum, and use it for network troubleshooting and such - along with seeing if there is a decent hotspot before digging out my laptop in an unfamiliar place.
I'm curious to see how they treat users who have purchased rejected apps. What happens if I remove it, and want to re-download it? Do I get my money back?
So, you're so incapable of determining the veracity of what you're reading that you demand government get involved to restrict who can have access to news?
I've never understood the concept of a "press pass" in the first place.
If you're that inept, your AP at home is likely "Linksys", or perhaps you've used one in a coffee shop or something. The next time it sees that SSID, it connects automagically unless you turn it off.