It's very simple really, let Muslims do among themselves whatever legal activity they like. For all this talk of progressives defending Sharia and how bad Sharia is, what's actually bad is allowing the government the massive overreach of arbitrarily banning otherwise lawful activity.
I have heard progressives outraged at Christians and Conservatives but, for far worse statements said by imams and Muslim speakers I've heard....... from progressives.
Right now Christians Conservatives control the house, the senate, the presidency, and any number of states. Muslims have almost no political power. These Christians Conservatives are perceived to be having a negative effect on people's everyday lives, and they're the ones in charge, so is it really surprising they get the most push-back from their actions?
Plus because of the right's obsession with banning otherwise lawful activity as above it's going to create more push-back still. If the right concentrated on cutting back government overreach (including existing laws like drug laws) and only concentrated on behavior that actually warranted laws, then I'm pretty sure the left wouldn't be pushing back.
Saying "Please God" is one thing. Taking over a public square or street is another.
So now protests, vigils and flash-mobs are illegal? Why would any conservative support such an anti-freedom law?
It's one thing to wear a balaclava to keep yourself warm or to protect yourself from wind. It's another to keep yourself covered for political reasons (the KKK, AntiFa);
And how do you codify that into a law without, again, creating an anti-freedom monstrosity?
and custom has not been accepted as an end-all-be-all reason to do what you want (even if it has religious rational)
Yes, that's been well established (see polygamy in the Mormon Church), any progressives argued against that? No?
Here's an interesting factoid - it's custom NOT religion that requires the full-body covering.
Yes, and? The point is how do you construct a law against it that isn't an anti-freedom nightmare? How would you even fully define the legal distinction between custom and religion anyway?
Re arbitration. Of course. Anyone can use arbitration but: etc. etc. etc.
Yes, all of those apply to any Sharia court ruling without banning Sharia courts, what's your point?
That being said I think we - as citizens - need to actively convince show proponents of Sharia Law that blasphemy laws have no place here
But again, that's just equating "defending Sharia law" with "wanting to implement all Sharia law", which isn't the same. It's a strawman. How many instances can you find of progressives specifically asking for blasphemy laws? Probably not many..?
The prayer in public squares have no place here.
How would that work? You gonna start arresting people for saying "please god" in public now?
that the full face must be shown when walking down the street
Again this one is hard to actually implement. Should this guy be arrested? Is this now illegal?
that sharia courts cannot be used in place of civil courts
But you just said the government shouldn't prevent private individuals from entering in to otherwise legal contracts. Why shouldn't private individuals have the option of using whatever arbitration service they choose as long as it also adheres to secular laws? Can you devise a law that would ban "sharia courts" without using the word "sharia" and without banning all other arbitration services?
You're still avoiding the question, which is should the government prevent individuals from entering into legal contracts between each other just because they came from Sharia. It's a very simple yes or no question.
The Bible says how others ought to behave. The Torah says how others ought to behave. Many of the things they say are illegal. Many of the things Sharia says are illegal. Many are not.
The point, which you've avoided answering, is to put a blanket ban on how individuals enter into contracts with one-another is completely unconservative.
The fact that you can find things in the old testament is less important than how people behave. Ask how your atheist friends would be treated under Sharia, your gay friends. Look at the polling among Muslims regarding blasphemy laws, It's frightening.
And you're falsely equating banning Sharia with enacting every Sharia as law. Many Sharia laws are already illegal, can you find any progressives that want to make those laws legal?
I'll ask again, do you believe the government should have the power to arbitrarily ban individuals from entering into private contracts with each other?
Instead we have progressives defending Sharia law. WTF?
Do you not consider the government banning individuals from entering into lawful (as in it breaks no existing law) private contracts between themselves to be a massive overreach of government? Don't conservatives support small government with minimal intrusion into the private lives of citizens?
Many rules in Sharia are already illegal, and no progressives are asking for them to be made legal. However many things in Sharia are mundane things that, if not labeled as "Sharia", you would never know even came from a religious source.
To ban otherwise legal activity purely because of its name is utterly unconservative.
Certainly it seems some of the original figures of neoconservatism came from right-leaning socialism, but it was the conservative Republican party that brought their ideas to the forefront of government, along with neoliberalism.
Trump is for the US following existing law regarding immigration.
What I'm talking about affects American Citizens, not immigrants.
He's not an ideologue for either free trade
He refused to label China a currency manipulator, refused to withdraw from NAFTA, hasn't reviewed "foreign trade practices that hurt American workers", so his anti-globalization stance has been luke-warm at best.
or interventionism
Stepping up bombing campaigns counts as intervention.
You mock him with the Bill Gates quote. I hope you, like me, equally mock AntiFa and SJW
They're not the president, they don't control the house, they don't control the senate. Trump and the Republicans do, so when they say they want to do something that attacks freedom of speech, privacy or liberty, you should actually take notice because they have the actual political power to enact it.
"We’re going to have to do things that we never did before. And some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule. And certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy. And so we’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago.” - Trump, Nov 2015
"We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what's happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way. Somebody will say, 'Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people." - Trump, Dec 2015
Most MS Office exploits I remember would run as soon as you opened the file. It's nice to see that Microsoft have managed to get their security to the point where it is at least necessary to interact with the file once opened to trigger the exploit...
Ignoring what Jzanu said for a moment, how do you propose for the border agency to actually find undeclared social media accounts and email addresses? At least without giving the government the power to read every single email stored in the US on the pretext of looking for aliases?
Sounds like they have pretty strong probable cause, so this would be more along the lines of withholding evidence / refusing a search warrant than the 5th.
XSLT still seems like the better choice to me, as it's geared towards taking actual machine readable data (XML) and transforming it into HTML. With your system you would have to already be outputting your data as HTML for it to be further transformed into the final markup.
This is nothing to do with being a distributed blockchain though is it? It's something a hardware vendor baked into their hardware. Blaming blockchains for this is like blaming html when Apple brick your phone for you.
I imagine it would be useful to state actors; Build up a database of pin codes then if you snatch a phone in a raid / at the border if it's part of your drag net you can unlock it without all the fuss like the San Bernardino iPhone caused.
Slashdot Mirror
And where do you draw the line?
It's very simple really, let Muslims do among themselves whatever legal activity they like. For all this talk of progressives defending Sharia and how bad Sharia is, what's actually bad is allowing the government the massive overreach of arbitrarily banning otherwise lawful activity.
I have heard progressives outraged at Christians and Conservatives but, for far worse statements said by imams and Muslim speakers I've heard ....... from progressives.
Right now Christians Conservatives control the house, the senate, the presidency, and any number of states. Muslims have almost no political power. These Christians Conservatives are perceived to be having a negative effect on people's everyday lives, and they're the ones in charge, so is it really surprising they get the most push-back from their actions?
Plus because of the right's obsession with banning otherwise lawful activity as above it's going to create more push-back still. If the right concentrated on cutting back government overreach (including existing laws like drug laws) and only concentrated on behavior that actually warranted laws, then I'm pretty sure the left wouldn't be pushing back.
Saying "Please God" is one thing. Taking over a public square or street is another.
So now protests, vigils and flash-mobs are illegal? Why would any conservative support such an anti-freedom law?
It's one thing to wear a balaclava to keep yourself warm or to protect yourself from wind. It's another to keep yourself covered for political reasons (the KKK, AntiFa);
And how do you codify that into a law without, again, creating an anti-freedom monstrosity?
and custom has not been accepted as an end-all-be-all reason to do what you want (even if it has religious rational)
Yes, that's been well established (see polygamy in the Mormon Church), any progressives argued against that? No?
Here's an interesting factoid - it's custom NOT religion that requires the full-body covering.
Yes, and? The point is how do you construct a law against it that isn't an anti-freedom nightmare? How would you even fully define the legal distinction between custom and religion anyway?
Re arbitration. Of course. Anyone can use arbitration but: etc. etc. etc.
Yes, all of those apply to any Sharia court ruling without banning Sharia courts, what's your point?
No. I didn't even realize that was the question you were asking. No. Of course not.
Ok then, so you stand shoulder to shoulder with progressives "defending Sharia law".
That being said I think we - as citizens - need to actively convince show proponents of Sharia Law that blasphemy laws have no place here
But again, that's just equating "defending Sharia law" with "wanting to implement all Sharia law", which isn't the same. It's a strawman. How many instances can you find of progressives specifically asking for blasphemy laws? Probably not many..?
The prayer in public squares have no place here.
How would that work? You gonna start arresting people for saying "please god" in public now?
that the full face must be shown when walking down the street
Again this one is hard to actually implement. Should this guy be arrested? Is this now illegal?
that sharia courts cannot be used in place of civil courts
But you just said the government shouldn't prevent private individuals from entering in to otherwise legal contracts. Why shouldn't private individuals have the option of using whatever arbitration service they choose as long as it also adheres to secular laws? Can you devise a law that would ban "sharia courts" without using the word "sharia" and without banning all other arbitration services?
You're still avoiding the question, which is should the government prevent individuals from entering into legal contracts between each other just because they came from Sharia. It's a very simple yes or no question.
The Bible says how others ought to behave. The Torah says how others ought to behave. Many of the things they say are illegal. Many of the things Sharia says are illegal. Many are not.
The point, which you've avoided answering, is to put a blanket ban on how individuals enter into contracts with one-another is completely unconservative.
The fact that you can find things in the old testament is less important than how people behave. Ask how your atheist friends would be treated under Sharia, your gay friends. Look at the polling among Muslims regarding blasphemy laws, It's frightening.
And you're falsely equating banning Sharia with enacting every Sharia as law. Many Sharia laws are already illegal, can you find any progressives that want to make those laws legal?
I'll ask again, do you believe the government should have the power to arbitrarily ban individuals from entering into private contracts with each other?
Instead we have progressives defending Sharia law. WTF?
Do you not consider the government banning individuals from entering into lawful (as in it breaks no existing law) private contracts between themselves to be a massive overreach of government? Don't conservatives support small government with minimal intrusion into the private lives of citizens?
Many rules in Sharia are already illegal, and no progressives are asking for them to be made legal. However many things in Sharia are mundane things that, if not labeled as "Sharia", you would never know even came from a religious source.
To ban otherwise legal activity purely because of its name is utterly unconservative.
Certainly it seems some of the original figures of neoconservatism came from right-leaning socialism, but it was the conservative Republican party that brought their ideas to the forefront of government, along with neoliberalism.
Trump is for security against Islamofascism.
Oh, and don't forget he did a multi-billion dollar arms deal with the one of the world's biggest exporters of Islamofascism extremism, Saudi Arabia...
NeoCons (ex Socialists who became Conservative in the 1970s - and their intellectual descendants) who, as we all know, are big interventionists.
George W Bush and Dick Chaney are ex-Socialists? Never heard that one before!
Trump is for security against Islamofascism.
Lets not forget as well as hating privacy he also hates freedom of speech -
"I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money."
I hope he's not into nation building and other such things (so far no indication of that).
Indeed, in fact he's very into nation destroying right now.
Trump is for the US following existing law regarding immigration.
What I'm talking about affects American Citizens, not immigrants.
He's not an ideologue for either free trade
He refused to label China a currency manipulator, refused to withdraw from NAFTA, hasn't reviewed "foreign trade practices that hurt American workers", so his anti-globalization stance has been luke-warm at best.
or interventionism
Stepping up bombing campaigns counts as intervention.
You mock him with the Bill Gates quote. I hope you, like me, equally mock AntiFa and SJW
They're not the president, they don't control the house, they don't control the senate. Trump and the Republicans do, so when they say they want to do something that attacks freedom of speech, privacy or liberty, you should actually take notice because they have the actual political power to enact it.
You do realize that Trump is not a SoCon right?
He is very big on "security" though -
"We’re going to have to do things that we never did before. And some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule. And certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy. And so we’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago.” - Trump, Nov 2015
"We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what's happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way. Somebody will say, 'Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people." - Trump, Dec 2015
All of Apple's products are made in China... Thus proving that China churns out low quality products :)
Most MS Office exploits I remember would run as soon as you opened the file. It's nice to see that Microsoft have managed to get their security to the point where it is at least necessary to interact with the file once opened to trigger the exploit...
Oh and since methane is a significant source of greenhouse gases I assume you want to kill every cow and pig on the planet and outlaw beef and pork.
At least biologically produced methane is carbon neutral and short lived in the atmosphere...
Ignoring what Jzanu said for a moment, how do you propose for the border agency to actually find undeclared social media accounts and email addresses? At least without giving the government the power to read every single email stored in the US on the pretext of looking for aliases?
But it is a member of EFTA...
Sounds like they have pretty strong probable cause, so this would be more along the lines of withholding evidence / refusing a search warrant than the 5th.
I mean, this seems like the proper way to do it rather than to, I don't know, try to force phone manufacturers to unlock it for them...
For a 10% ROI, it would need to generate about $600k per day in tolls.
It would need to generate $600k per day in profit, so you have to account for operating and maintenance costs on top of that.
XSLT still seems like the better choice to me, as it's geared towards taking actual machine readable data (XML) and transforming it into HTML. With your system you would have to already be outputting your data as HTML for it to be further transformed into the final markup.
This is nothing to do with being a distributed blockchain though is it? It's something a hardware vendor baked into their hardware. Blaming blockchains for this is like blaming html when Apple brick your phone for you.
Training/simulation seems to be an almost established niche, but beyond that I can think of anything.
Gaming and 3D modeling are the other obvious ones.
I imagine it would be useful to state actors; Build up a database of pin codes then if you snatch a phone in a raid / at the border if it's part of your drag net you can unlock it without all the fuss like the San Bernardino iPhone caused.
I'm pretty sure mobile OS' don't allow user level apps to read touch positions from things like the lockscreen.
11 billion light years away didn't happen last nite
No, it happened somewhere around 11 billion years ago
yes
Fish pee, fish pee everywhere...
You do know that stuff doesn't actually exist, right?