>No, it will be the Secretary of State in one of the red states.
Ok, this scenario comes around. The SoS receives a copy of the same document we've all seen facsimiles of, but one that originates from the Hawaii Dept. of Vital Records. What then? Are you saying a state is actually going to reject this? Keep in mind there's not a shred of evidence that gives a legitimate reason to reject it, only speculation.
I think it is important to note that, as yet, no one has been forced to buy health insurance, and no tax has been levied for health care reform. The opposition party maintains a pretense that these things have not only already happened, but are already causing businesses to shrink their labor pool and that already businesses are in tax debt because of it. The premise is totally ludicrous.
>Obama's party has the supermajority in the government.
They had this, briefly, but at the time they had hope for actual bipartisan involvement. Once the Republicans got that 41 vote minority, the Republicans became dedicated to obstruction.
>As for socialism, if you don't see how the government forcing everyone to pay for health insurance isn't an intrusion >of government into our personal lives, nothing will convince you.
It's a market-driven approach -- pretty much the antithesis of "socialism" in the vernacular that's being used in this case. I agree that the current plan places too much of a burden on those that won't be able to afford health insurance. It started going wrong when a true public health system was taken off the table. Yes, I'm saying that the big problem with the plan is that it purposely avoids introducing a socialist public health program. Once it became clear that we could not have an actual public health system in the current political climate, we should not have pushed for the market-driven compromise.
My own reading of Marx informs me that he wrote on universal concerns of labor and capital. It's hard to imagine *any* economic system that can function at all that lacks any element that can be attributed to Marx.
"Distribution of wealth" is the primary function of any economic system, period.
>The most serious point I've heard from the birthers is that Hawaii has refused to show Obama's original birth certificate.
Refused to show it to whom?
Nobody with the authority to demand it has ever demanded to see it.
You know who the first person to see it will be? The Republican nominee in 2012, immediately after he or she actually puts forth a claim against President Obama's eligibility. It would DESTROY his opponent. Why would he throw away this kind of trump card just because a lunatic fringe has developed an institutional lie about it?
There is nothing that President Obama can do, or not do, that will meet with the approval of those who oppose him on abstract general principles. In the past few weeks I've been treated to a few rants about how the President, Cabinet, and Congressional leadership are literally *Marxists* who are bent on turning the United States into a Socialist state.
I have tried to get these people to identify the specific attributes of "Marxism" or "Socialism" that they are objecting to. It's pretty clear that they, if pressed, are generally unable to give even the most general definition of these terms, let alone to actually nail down specific elements and give evidence.
The trouble is, the intangible things you listed that make your location desirable, are not things you can use in a job search. You don't say even generally where you live or who you work for or whether they are hiring. I'm glad your friends have a good place on $800 rent. Are they hiring?
All you need to do is find someone who has actually managed a project with a development team in India. It's really not an experience you choose to repeat. The pendulum is swinging back.
I'm a huge open source advocate, but Confluence (and JIRA!) are very hard to beat. If my employer was buying either Confluence or Jira, I wouldn't fight over this *at all.*
I have an open wi-fi access point. The SSID is named "FBI Surveillance". I've waited a long, long time for someone else to actually connect to it. If they did, it's not as if they'd be able to access any of my hosts - my security doesn't rely on a closed network segment at all.
I'd give it to my lawyer, and force the FBI to get a court order to retrieve it, in hopes that this could open a new avenue for a judgment on the legality of installing the device in the first place.
Always assume that the people you have to prove it to consist of a room full of democrats who moved to Texas from Massachusetts, not just the Midlothian Sheriff.
>Wasn't there a story a while back about a no-knock-wrong-address raid where the owner thought people were trying to kill his family, shot a cop and then got life in prison?
There are plenty of stories that go along the same lines. Man killed someone, believing he was justified. Grand jury did not accept the justification. Man was tried for homicide, was clearly responsible for the homicide, and either a jury didn't accept his justification, or they did accept it and that's why he's serving life in prison instead of facing execution.
Too many people seem to have this idea that "castle laws" and self-defense doctrine and the like mean that you don't still face some complications if you actually kill someone. These laws create a body of potential defenses one can use to mitigate one's responsibility for manslaughter, but that defense still has to be made, and still has to be accepted by a jury.
In Texas, in particular, there is at least a way a Grand Jury can affirmatively accept your defense, and issue a No Bill, which is the state's way of asserting that they will never prosecute you for the crime. In other states, such as Arizona, there is no such thing. If you kill someone justifiably, and persuade the state not to prosecute you, it still hangs over your head for the rest of your life. The state can always come back and decide to prosecute you for manslaughter. When your justification isn't accepted, it's not like you have the option of claiming you didn't do it.
It's best not to get into this situation in the first place, but when you have to, be very sure that you are justified, and assume that you are going to have to sell that justification, perhaps repeatedly for years ongoing, to a room full of people who tend toward wanting to lock you up by default.
It's still up to the Grand Jury to decide whether your justification means they will set aside the manslaughter charge. It is disturbing to think that there are a lot of people out there who believe that the "castle law" somehow means that killing someone in a defensibly justified way, doesn't still wreck your life. It may keep you out of prison... or it may merely keep you off death row, or may get you a 99 year sentence instead of life. Or it may get you a no-bill. I wouldn't count on that no-bill if the guy you killed happened to be an FBI agent who was killed by you in the course of investigating you.
What you are missing in the original story is that the agents who installed the tracking unit didn't go anywhere they didn't have a right to be. Strictly speaking, they didn't do anything any more illegal that what the postman does when he traverses your walkway to deliver the mail.
If it had been necessary for them to e.g., enter a locked garage in order to install the tracking device, that would clearly be a form of trespass that (in some places) can justify the use of lethal force.
There are many situations where killing someone because they are "on your property" is still not a defensible manslaughter.
(The guy that was jumping over your fence because he was running away from a bear? A grand jury might not agree that it was justified. The guy you shot turned out to be an FBI agent who was in the course of an investigation where you were the subject? While I agree that there are gray areas, good luck to you with the Grand Jury on that one.)
If you do a non-biased double-blind test, where you don't ask the subjects to express a preference but rather to simply distinguish between the two beverages, you won't find a statistically meaningful result from the C-P groups versus the C-C and P-P controls. As many people will say one is "A" and the other is "B" when they are the same beverage as when they are different.
I've never seen a rigorous "Pepsi challenge" and the Pepsi folks certainly never did it double-blind, and definitely wouldn't show you controls where both cups had Coke.
I remember things like this whenever someone criticizes the US and suggests that I move to a free country. Netherlands has often been on that supposed list of "free countries."
Except that Vim is a very current too, not backward at all, and it is eminently practical, and efficient. Since I use it constantly, I guess I fail to see the problem other people have with it.
Slashdot Mirror
>That's not true! They're also paid quite well by the recording industry to speak
>out against piracy!
Do the record companies pay them more or less than they actually lose to piracy?
I wonder if they declare these losses for insurance or tax purposes?
>No, it will be the Secretary of State in one of the red states.
Ok, this scenario comes around. The SoS receives a copy of the same document we've all seen facsimiles of, but one that originates from the Hawaii Dept. of Vital Records. What then? Are you saying a state is actually going to reject this? Keep in mind there's not a shred of evidence that gives a legitimate reason to reject it, only speculation.
I think it is important to note that, as yet, no one has been forced to buy health insurance, and no tax has been levied for health care reform. The opposition party maintains a pretense that these things have not only already happened, but are already causing businesses to shrink their labor pool and that already businesses are in tax debt because of it. The premise is totally ludicrous.
>Obama's party has the supermajority in the government.
They had this, briefly, but at the time they had hope for actual bipartisan involvement.
Once the Republicans got that 41 vote minority, the Republicans became dedicated to obstruction.
>As for socialism, if you don't see how the government forcing everyone to pay for health insurance isn't an intrusion
>of government into our personal lives, nothing will convince you.
It's a market-driven approach -- pretty much the antithesis of "socialism" in the vernacular that's being used in this case. I agree that the current plan places too much of a burden on those that won't be able to afford health insurance. It started going wrong when a true public health system was taken off the table. Yes, I'm saying that the big problem with the plan is that it purposely avoids introducing a socialist public health program. Once it became clear that we could not have an actual public health system in the current political climate, we should not have pushed for the market-driven compromise.
My own reading of Marx informs me that he wrote on universal concerns of labor and capital. It's hard to imagine *any* economic system that can function at all that lacks any element that can be attributed to Marx.
"Distribution of wealth" is the primary function of any economic system, period.
>The most serious point I've heard from the birthers is that Hawaii has refused to show Obama's original birth certificate.
Refused to show it to whom?
Nobody with the authority to demand it has ever demanded to see it.
You know who the first person to see it will be? The Republican nominee in 2012, immediately after he or she actually puts forth a claim against President Obama's eligibility. It would DESTROY his opponent. Why would he throw away this kind of trump card just because a lunatic fringe has developed an institutional lie about it?
There is nothing that President Obama can do, or not do, that will meet with the approval of those who oppose him on abstract general principles. In the past few weeks I've been treated to a few rants about how the President, Cabinet, and Congressional leadership are literally *Marxists* who are bent on turning the United States into a Socialist state.
I have tried to get these people to identify the specific attributes of "Marxism" or "Socialism" that they are objecting to. It's pretty clear that they, if pressed, are generally unable to give even the most general definition of these terms, let alone to actually nail down specific elements and give evidence.
The trouble is, the intangible things you listed that make your location desirable, are not things you can use in a job search.
You don't say even generally where you live or who you work for or whether they are hiring. I'm glad your friends have a good place on $800 rent. Are they hiring?
>fierce competition from India
All you need to do is find someone who has actually managed a project with a development team in India.
It's really not an experience you choose to repeat. The pendulum is swinging back.
>Heck, in this context, Omaha, Des Moines, Witchita, et. al. likely are considered the boonies...
In this context, I think Denver and Seattle might be considered the boonies.
I'm a huge open source advocate, but Confluence (and JIRA!) are very hard to beat. If my employer was buying either Confluence or Jira, I wouldn't fight over this *at all.*
I have an open wi-fi access point. The SSID is named "FBI Surveillance". I've waited a long, long time for someone else to actually connect to it. If they did, it's not as if they'd be able to access any of my hosts - my security doesn't rely on a closed network segment at all.
I'd give it to my lawyer, and force the FBI to get a court order to retrieve it, in hopes that this could open a new avenue for a judgment on the legality of installing the device in the first place.
Always assume that the people you have to prove it to consist of a room full of democrats who moved to Texas from Massachusetts, not just the Midlothian Sheriff.
>Wasn't there a story a while back about a no-knock-wrong-address raid where the owner thought people were trying to kill his family, shot a cop and then got life in prison?
There are plenty of stories that go along the same lines. Man killed someone, believing he was justified. Grand jury did not accept the justification. Man was tried for homicide, was clearly responsible for the homicide, and either a jury didn't accept his justification, or they did accept it and that's why he's serving life in prison instead of facing execution.
Too many people seem to have this idea that "castle laws" and self-defense doctrine and the like mean that you don't still face some complications if you actually kill someone. These laws create a body of potential defenses one can use to mitigate one's responsibility for manslaughter, but that defense still has to be made, and still has to be accepted by a jury.
In Texas, in particular, there is at least a way a Grand Jury can affirmatively accept your defense, and issue a No Bill, which is the state's way of asserting that they will never prosecute you for the crime. In other states, such as Arizona, there is no such thing. If you kill someone justifiably, and persuade the state not to prosecute you, it still hangs over your head for the rest of your life. The state can always come back and decide to prosecute you for manslaughter. When your justification isn't accepted, it's not like you have the option of claiming you didn't do it.
It's best not to get into this situation in the first place, but when you have to, be very sure that you are justified, and assume that you are going to have to sell that justification, perhaps repeatedly for years ongoing, to a room full of people who tend toward wanting to lock you up by default.
Texas jails are home to quite a few people who thought the law would be on their side when they committed manslaughter.
It's still up to the Grand Jury to decide whether your justification means they will set aside the manslaughter charge.
It is disturbing to think that there are a lot of people out there who believe that the "castle law" somehow means that killing someone in a defensibly justified way, doesn't still wreck your life. It may keep you out of prison... or it may merely keep you off death row, or may get you a 99 year sentence instead of life. Or it may get you a no-bill. I wouldn't count on that no-bill if the guy you killed happened to be an FBI agent who was killed by you in the course of investigating you.
What you are missing in the original story is that the agents who installed the tracking unit didn't go anywhere they didn't have a right to be.
Strictly speaking, they didn't do anything any more illegal that what the postman does when he traverses your walkway to deliver the mail.
If it had been necessary for them to e.g., enter a locked garage in order to install the tracking device, that would clearly be a form of trespass that (in some places) can justify the use of lethal force.
There are many situations where killing someone because they are "on your property" is still not a defensible manslaughter.
(The guy that was jumping over your fence because he was running away from a bear? A grand jury might not agree that it was justified. The guy you shot turned out to be an FBI agent who was in the course of an investigation where you were the subject? While I agree that there are gray areas, good luck to you with the Grand Jury on that one.)
My hypothesis:
If you do a non-biased double-blind test, where you don't ask the subjects to express a preference but rather to simply distinguish between the two beverages, you won't find a statistically meaningful result from the C-P groups versus the C-C and P-P controls. As many people will say one is "A" and the other is "B" when they are the same beverage as when they are different.
I've never seen a rigorous "Pepsi challenge" and the Pepsi folks certainly never did it double-blind, and definitely wouldn't show you controls where both cups had Coke.
I always preferred RC myself.
I remember things like this whenever someone criticizes the US and suggests that I move to a free country. Netherlands has often been on that supposed list of "free countries."
Passing nuclear secrets to the West? What's next? Smuggling drugs into Mexico?
>Winter of Discontent
1482?
>intellectually dishonest
What does that mean? Why not just say "dishonest?"
>Just looked it up actually it's ISO 8601
I like it a lot: Most significant to least significant, and always sorts correctly.
Except that Vim is a very current too, not backward at all, and it is eminently practical, and efficient. Since I use it constantly, I guess I fail to see the problem other people have with it.