1. Ok, just did. Checked boston globe, and a few other newspapers I hadn't heard of before. It doesn't appear to be a particularly common assertion about the story, and notably, the first comment I found seemed to be from Virginia.
This isn't an argument, it's a simple assertion about the OP's post.
Uh huh, so nothing specific at all. Just your impression of what you think the law says, and your interpretation of the constitution that is, notably, not backed up by the court system. What we have sucks but your feigned outrage directed at highly unspecific claims just makes you look stupid.
Yeah, I don't think I've heard of anyone who actually lives in Massachusetts complaining about it. That's more of a southern republican narrative to talk about than an actual common complaint by the state's citizens. That's not to say no citizens complain, everyone hates paying taxes.
I think the idea is that custom software incorporates at least 1 well paid white collar employee paying taxes, which is a preferable result for the state's economy to someone just installing some software and charging $X,000 for it.
Yeah, it's not a matter of moral superiority, the U.S. has basically none of that left anywhere, it's about realpolitik. Assume every rival is out to get you as much as you're out to get them, and then some.
Oh, fun, the person who assumes I never vote third party, and that "both" sides are equally bad. Congratulations on your truly stupendous level of cynicism that also achieves nothing. We're all very impressed.
Never compromise your principles and never have anything to show for it, in a broken winner-take-all system encoded into a constitution written prior to the invention of game theory.
That's not an acceptable solution either. Code shouldn't be making assumptions about data like that. If there's a default value, and it could reasonably be ascribed to the schema, then the software shouldn't be assuming it.
Lazy. Obama's not blameless. But all evidence at this point suggests he was following the terrible law as terribly written. Bush specifically did the same thing circumventing courts and warrants entirely, though the ACLU "lacked standing" to take him to court about it. Obama promised an end to warrant-less domestic wiretaps when he ran in 2008. That's what we got. I'm pretty much on the ACLU's side about most legal questions, and Obama hasn't been.
And, we've discovered that certain kinds intervention before age 18 is really effective at decreasing crime rates among these people. And notably, in spite of the fact that we have all these awesome criteria, less than 10% of those who meet our best criteria ever really do anything wrong. NOVA had a fascinating documentary about it. (I'm at work and can't verify that's the right video). If we could trivially split people into categories of "future murderer" and "non-murderer" it wouldmake life easier, but we cannot.
I suspect your problem is a point others have brought up in this thread: the aluminum case. If you live/work in a carpeted area, you can build up substantial static charge on yourself. Your phone rings, you're grounded against a fairly large, high conductivity object, and the natural conclusion is the ringing is what caused the zap.
They simply won't accept that some people are born evil and need to be locked up for life or executed for the safety of the public. And many people have paid the price for that arrogance.
You dismiss religious absolutism, but you're willing to accept the idea of someone being unavoidably "evil"? Do you realize how subjective that is? How hypocritical? Not everyone who disagrees with you does so because they are incapable of compromise, sometimes it's because you are.
Military killing depends a lot on dehumanizing foes. Battlefield terminology for foes almost always takes the form of a very non-human noun, whether it's "targets", "hostiles", or "alpha", the words that are used are never words that inherently imply personhood. There's a well-researched book about how this corresponds to good people being capable of terrible things.
Slashdot Mirror
In even more fairness, 90% of everything is crap.
When reached for comment, Magneto promised that this would spell inevitable war between mutants and humans.
1. Ok, just did. Checked boston globe, and a few other newspapers I hadn't heard of before. It doesn't appear to be a particularly common assertion about the story, and notably, the first comment I found seemed to be from Virginia.
This isn't an argument, it's a simple assertion about the OP's post.
Uh huh, so nothing specific at all. Just your impression of what you think the law says, and your interpretation of the constitution that is, notably, not backed up by the court system. What we have sucks but your feigned outrage directed at highly unspecific claims just makes you look stupid.
You also have this to show for it, numbnuts.
Yeah, I don't think I've heard of anyone who actually lives in Massachusetts complaining about it. That's more of a southern republican narrative to talk about than an actual common complaint by the state's citizens. That's not to say no citizens complain, everyone hates paying taxes.
I think the idea is that custom software incorporates at least 1 well paid white collar employee paying taxes, which is a preferable result for the state's economy to someone just installing some software and charging $X,000 for it.
Yeah, it's not a matter of moral superiority, the U.S. has basically none of that left anywhere, it's about realpolitik. Assume every rival is out to get you as much as you're out to get them, and then some.
Lindsey Graham in particular was very adamant that we maximize injustice in our country.
Very angry.
Oh an expert on the laws Obama has broken, eh. Care to cite which laws, which clauses? Or are we not actually a lawyer, just very angry?
Oh, fun, the person who assumes I never vote third party, and that "both" sides are equally bad. Congratulations on your truly stupendous level of cynicism that also achieves nothing. We're all very impressed.
Never compromise your principles and never have anything to show for it, in a broken winner-take-all system encoded into a constitution written prior to the invention of game theory.
That's not an acceptable solution either. Code shouldn't be making assumptions about data like that. If there's a default value, and it could reasonably be ascribed to the schema, then the software shouldn't be assuming it.
Lazy. Obama's not blameless. But all evidence at this point suggests he was following the terrible law as terribly written. Bush specifically did the same thing circumventing courts and warrants entirely, though the ACLU "lacked standing" to take him to court about it. Obama promised an end to warrant-less domestic wiretaps when he ran in 2008. That's what we got. I'm pretty much on the ACLU's side about most legal questions, and Obama hasn't been.
I know, as a developer, but I have no-damn-clue who my sysadmin is.
One does not preclude the other.
Replacing reality with fiction changes the nature of a statement? Fascinating, do tell me more.
And, we've discovered that certain kinds intervention before age 18 is really effective at decreasing crime rates among these people. And notably, in spite of the fact that we have all these awesome criteria, less than 10% of those who meet our best criteria ever really do anything wrong. NOVA had a fascinating documentary about it. (I'm at work and can't verify that's the right video). If we could trivially split people into categories of "future murderer" and "non-murderer" it wouldmake life easier, but we cannot.
Having a lack of sympathy for people who commit terrible crimes doesn't necessary have a corresponding lack of empathy for them as human beings.
I suspect your problem is a point others have brought up in this thread: the aluminum case. If you live/work in a carpeted area, you can build up substantial static charge on yourself. Your phone rings, you're grounded against a fairly large, high conductivity object, and the natural conclusion is the ringing is what caused the zap.
They simply won't accept that some people are born evil and need to be locked up for life or executed for the safety of the public. And many people have paid the price for that arrogance.
You dismiss religious absolutism, but you're willing to accept the idea of someone being unavoidably "evil"? Do you realize how subjective that is? How hypocritical? Not everyone who disagrees with you does so because they are incapable of compromise, sometimes it's because you are.
Drawing obvious parallels for humor isn't the same as making a cogent point. Chill.
Military killing depends a lot on dehumanizing foes. Battlefield terminology for foes almost always takes the form of a very non-human noun, whether it's "targets", "hostiles", or "alpha", the words that are used are never words that inherently imply personhood. There's a well-researched book about how this corresponds to good people being capable of terrible things.
Well, if they don't want to go back to their seat in congress after the treatment, they're better.
How about we hold their eyes open and force them to watch horrific, violent videos, preferably multiple at a time.
Hence the "quotes"