I go out and buy a junked 1972 Pontiac Firebird, then spend a a few months and thousands of dollars restoring it. A day after I put the finishing touches on the trim, some steals the car, which is now in much better shape than it was before, has tremendous resale value, and instills pride in ownership. Since I had fun restoring the car, the money was well spent and thus nothing was lost . ..???
I think GP was talking about they judges. They can't understand basic phrases like "shall not" so they allow grossly unconstitutional laws to remain in effect instead of striking them down. Of course, there's always some asinine reasoning of why such and such is an exception to constitutional limitations, but they are usually BS reasons.
The point GP was trying to make was that YOU didn't do anything to the Native Americans. GP did nothing to Native Americans. So what if your great great grandfather was a racist or whatever. The point is, no one alive today was part of that story, so no one alive today should feel guilty about it. Learn from it? Sure! But guilty? Hardly.
If a store started charging all of its customers the highest rate, I'm pretty sure that store would find itself in some sort of legal trouble. If the tax at a particular location is 8%, a company cannot charge 9% just to make it easier on themselves. That 1%, even if the company gave it to the government, is no longer a tax. It is an added cost of the item.
If you really hold that the general principle that "Nobody owes anybody anything" is valid, then I suppose "sharing" is delusional and childish, "sacrifice for others" is delayed gratification, "charity" a clever misdirection or an attempt at ego agggrandisement, and "community service" is an atonement for misplaced guilt.
The problem is that even animals don't subscribe to that kind of thinking, or behaviour. Your justifications no doubt seem correct to you, but I suspect in the end you'll wind up recognising them as nothing other than sophistry. I'd also suspect visiting a school bake sale or a community food bank and talking to the locals might accelerate the process.
There is a difference between 1) someone taking your money and 2) you giving it away freely. Just because someone chooses to give to a charity does not mean they want to be taxed more, and just because someone wishes to keep their taxes low does not mean they wouldn't give to a charity. You are equating the idea of giving with the idea of having things taken from you forcibly. At no time did GP imply that this was the case. Basically, "Nobody owes anybody anything." does NOT imply "sharing is delusional and childish" or any of your other examples.
Opt-in and opt-out aren't defined by whether you ask or someone asks you. It is defined by whether the default state is "every person is part of the program unless they choose not to be" or "no person is part of the program unless they choose to be." If the only people who are organ donors are people who specifically say "yes" or check the "yes" box, then that is an opt-in system. If you are automatically an organ donor unless you say "no" then that is an opt-out system.
Another way to look at it is by what the doctors are allowed to assume. In most of the U.S. (maybe all of it?), if a person gets hit by a bus and they do not have an organ donor card, and it doesn't say organ donor on their license, then the doctors must assume the person is NOT an organ donor. Doctors cannot take those organs unless they find out, that the person was an organ donor, i.e. the wife comes in and says so. In a large chunk of Europe I believe, the opposite is true. The doctors will assume you are an organ donor unless they are shown proof that you have opted out.
That's all fine and dandy when the two people in the situation are the guy and the jackass, but what about all the other situations, where the strong guy IS the jackass, and some random person gets those punches in the face?
Burt Rutan might be famous in aerospace, but Branson made aerospace famous. He'll be remembered along with The Wright brothers, Lindbergh, Armstrong, and maybe that insane guy they made a movie about a few years ago (with Leonardo DiCaprio).
The supreme court gave itself the power to rule that laws passed by congress were unconstitutional. I believe it remains to be seen whether the supreme court would extend the scope of that power to include treaties signed by the president.
The charity might still come out $20k ahead, but the company is out $70k. That $70k has to be paid back somehow. It would have been much better if they had to pay back $20k instead of $70k, no?
I think the problem is that "not being able to teach worth a damn" is not considered "cause" for firing. All a teacher has to do in order to not get fired is to not do anything bad. This leaves a lot of students who don't get taught anything year after year.
I think most of us would agree that teachers are not paid enough money. That is not the issue though, and should not be confused as such. The issue is whether the teachers own the material they create for the school system.
Except teachers aren't paid by hour, they are paid salary, which means any time they spend in order to get the job done is included in the salary. If the teacher creates a lesson plan at home and uses it in class, then that lesson plan was paid for by the school. If the teacher creates a lesson plan and doesn't use it in class, then I suppose it could be sold. But how often does that actually occur?
Unfortunately that's when the stores will start hiding that little feature when shoppers are browsing for their new phone. They won't know about it until they get it home and play with it for a few days. Once again, the mega corps will start preying on the ignorant.
So yes there you have it... but probably not the way you thought.
I'm not sure what you are getting at, except maybe you read something in my post that I never said. I'm not arguing whether this exploit is or isn't or ever was a zero day attack. I simply gave the accepted definition, which was quite different from what a lot of people were thinking. Now that we have a definition, that I hope we all agree on since it comes from a "acceptable" source, we can begin to have a decent discussion on how this current exploit fits in. You have to have your definitions straight first, or else everyone is just talking past each other.
Slashdot Mirror
I go out and buy a junked 1972 Pontiac Firebird, then spend a a few months and thousands of dollars restoring it. A day after I put the finishing touches on the trim, some steals the car, which is now in much better shape than it was before, has tremendous resale value, and instills pride in ownership. Since I had fun restoring the car, the money was well spent and thus nothing was lost . . .???
I think GP was talking about they judges. They can't understand basic phrases like "shall not" so they allow grossly unconstitutional laws to remain in effect instead of striking them down. Of course, there's always some asinine reasoning of why such and such is an exception to constitutional limitations, but they are usually BS reasons.
The point GP was trying to make was that YOU didn't do anything to the Native Americans. GP did nothing to Native Americans. So what if your great great grandfather was a racist or whatever. The point is, no one alive today was part of that story, so no one alive today should feel guilty about it. Learn from it? Sure! But guilty? Hardly.
Well played sir, well played.
If a store started charging all of its customers the highest rate, I'm pretty sure that store would find itself in some sort of legal trouble. If the tax at a particular location is 8%, a company cannot charge 9% just to make it easier on themselves. That 1%, even if the company gave it to the government, is no longer a tax. It is an added cost of the item.
If you really hold that the general principle that "Nobody owes anybody anything" is valid, then I suppose "sharing" is delusional and childish, "sacrifice for others" is delayed gratification, "charity" a clever misdirection or an attempt at ego agggrandisement, and "community service" is an atonement for misplaced guilt.
The problem is that even animals don't subscribe to that kind of thinking, or behaviour. Your justifications no doubt seem correct to you, but I suspect in the end you'll wind up recognising them as nothing other than sophistry. I'd also suspect visiting a school bake sale or a community food bank and talking to the locals might accelerate the process.
There is a difference between 1) someone taking your money and 2) you giving it away freely. Just because someone chooses to give to a charity does not mean they want to be taxed more, and just because someone wishes to keep their taxes low does not mean they wouldn't give to a charity. You are equating the idea of giving with the idea of having things taken from you forcibly. At no time did GP imply that this was the case. Basically, "Nobody owes anybody anything." does NOT imply "sharing is delusional and childish" or any of your other examples.
Only if Samantha Carter is driving.
Aaaah . . Samantha Carter . . .is so .. .yummy . . !!.
*drools on keyboard*
Well to do that you are going to have to hire a lawyer.
No you wont. Simply request arbitration, in writing. They'll usually leave you alone after that.
Opt-in and opt-out aren't defined by whether you ask or someone asks you. It is defined by whether the default state is "every person is part of the program unless they choose not to be" or "no person is part of the program unless they choose to be." If the only people who are organ donors are people who specifically say "yes" or check the "yes" box, then that is an opt-in system. If you are automatically an organ donor unless you say "no" then that is an opt-out system.
Another way to look at it is by what the doctors are allowed to assume. In most of the U.S. (maybe all of it?), if a person gets hit by a bus and they do not have an organ donor card, and it doesn't say organ donor on their license, then the doctors must assume the person is NOT an organ donor. Doctors cannot take those organs unless they find out, that the person was an organ donor, i.e. the wife comes in and says so. In a large chunk of Europe I believe, the opposite is true. The doctors will assume you are an organ donor unless they are shown proof that you have opted out.
That's all fine and dandy when the two people in the situation are the guy and the jackass, but what about all the other situations, where the strong guy IS the jackass, and some random person gets those punches in the face?
Just to be clear: you are saying that I should be able to shell out $300 and get a decent gaming computer that will "easily last several years" ??
To be fair, this method would give inconsistent results unless the measurement was taken while the gas was at a set pressure.
Burt Rutan might be famous in aerospace, but Branson made aerospace famous. He'll be remembered along with The Wright brothers, Lindbergh, Armstrong, and maybe that insane guy they made a movie about a few years ago (with Leonardo DiCaprio).
Unless you have 18 or 12 foot high walls in your bedroom, then it looks like you just did the math to be able to cover your floor 4 times.
Yet that is exactly what I do with my mom and sister. It works out quite nicely.
It says:
Pound pastrami, can kraut,six bagels--bring home for Emma."
NO NO NO! Whoever heard of "A Canticle for Voynich" ?? It just doesn't have the same ring to it, does it?
Unfortunately this is a treaty, not a law. I don't know if the supreme court can nullify a treaty.
The supreme court gave itself the power to rule that laws passed by congress were unconstitutional. I believe it remains to be seen whether the supreme court would extend the scope of that power to include treaties signed by the president.
The charity might still come out $20k ahead, but the company is out $70k. That $70k has to be paid back somehow. It would have been much better if they had to pay back $20k instead of $70k, no?
That's because any news entity that sue for the right to make up the news should not be called "mainstream media."
I think the problem is that "not being able to teach worth a damn" is not considered "cause" for firing. All a teacher has to do in order to not get fired is to not do anything bad. This leaves a lot of students who don't get taught anything year after year.
I think most of us would agree that teachers are not paid enough money. That is not the issue though, and should not be confused as such. The issue is whether the teachers own the material they create for the school system.
Except teachers aren't paid by hour, they are paid salary, which means any time they spend in order to get the job done is included in the salary. If the teacher creates a lesson plan at home and uses it in class, then that lesson plan was paid for by the school. If the teacher creates a lesson plan and doesn't use it in class, then I suppose it could be sold. But how often does that actually occur?
Unfortunately that's when the stores will start hiding that little feature when shoppers are browsing for their new phone. They won't know about it until they get it home and play with it for a few days. Once again, the mega corps will start preying on the ignorant.
So yes there you have it... but probably not the way you thought.
I'm not sure what you are getting at, except maybe you read something in my post that I never said. I'm not arguing whether this exploit is or isn't or ever was a zero day attack. I simply gave the accepted definition, which was quite different from what a lot of people were thinking. Now that we have a definition, that I hope we all agree on since it comes from a "acceptable" source, we can begin to have a decent discussion on how this current exploit fits in. You have to have your definitions straight first, or else everyone is just talking past each other.