Maybe you should less worried about the camera on a private citizens glasses that can only run for a few hours at a time and more worried about the government owned cameras on every street corner and the business's cameras in every corner of every building that run and record 24/7.
In fact, Apple II monitor code had a nifty reverse assembler built in.
I'm sure there are a lot of us that remember "CALL -151"...:-)
I remember that. For whatever reason 3d0g would get me out of it. I was just a kid and had no idea what to do with the gibberish that the assembler would spit out at me. I just knew how to get out and back to my prompt.
=As a former soldier, I don't want them to cut funding for air conditioning. Operating in climates with 120 F for months at a time is pretty hard, and the computers and equipment starts failing.
If US soldiers were not deployed in places they have no business being in the first place, the need for air conditioning would drop drastically.
Fraud is the only viable reason for fighting against voter ID laws. Your opposition proves the need for such laws.
Does this level of ignorance come naturally for you or do you havve to try hard to achieve it?
I can give you at least one mor viable reason for fighting against the kind of voter ID laws that are implemented now: They very clearly prevent the poor and less educated people from voting. Voter ID laws lead to more eligible voters not being able to vote than the amount of fraudulent votes prevented.
Politicians may claim that the implement these laws to stop voter fraud, but it's obvious they to it to prevent potential votes for the other party.
ID's for the purpose of voting are free if you can't afford them, and they'll even register you to vote at the same time. So tell me again how they stop the poor from voting?
You can vote for a new school board. Volunteer to help their election campaign. Or run for election yourself. You actually have MORE voice there than with a private school, where losing 1 customer is quite frankly not a big deal.
Oh, and my daughter's class has six students. Losing one of those students is a HUGE deal. How big of a deal is it to a public school if I pull my child out of an class room that I pay for no matter what, that is already overcrowded, doesn't have enough textbooks to go around and has a shortage of desks?
You can vote for a new school board. Volunteer to help their election campaign. Or run for election yourself. You actually have MORE voice there than with a private school, where losing 1 customer is quite frankly not a big deal.
Well, considering that the last school board election was decided by more than one vote, my voting would have made no difference. Sure, I could run myself, but I'd be running against some academia type who has the backing of the teacher's union, which make up the bulk of the school board voters anyway, because he/she won't make the teachers accountable. (I support vouchers and would never get elected) And even if I could start a campaign to elect school board members who would make schools and teachers accountable, how many years would my child have to go to a sub-standard school while my campaign gains traction, gets the right people elected, and positive changes can be proposed, approved and implemented?
Or, I can send my daughter to the school that I choose today, knowing that she'll have an incredible advantage over all those poor minority kids with parents that can't afford to send their kids to private school.
First of all, private organizations use money unwisely all the time.
Yes, but when they do, you can take your money elsewhere. For example, if I were to find out that my daughter's private school was wasting money, I'd pull her out and send her to a different school. However, if I find out that my daughter's public school is wasting money, THERE IS NOTHING I CAN DO because I have to send her there or I go to jail, CPS takes my daughter away and sends her to the school anyway.
I couldn't figure out whether Ethanol Fueled's "anonymous" reply post was troll or not until I clicked the link. Ethanol Fueled's post needs more points and visibility.
Forehead.picard.gif
-- BMO
Yes, the post is obviously a troll. If you weren't sure, look at the grandma part.
It's not a legitimate secret. It's a coverup of war crime. They are not the same thing.
Manning released over 10,000 documents. Are you sure he read them all and confirmed that every single of the 10,000 documents contained evidence of a war crime and made sure that the release would not help the enemy?
Don't get me wrong, if he read and verified every document he sent out, fine. That's not the case here.
'Unlimited data' would get me over to them _if_ the other problems were solved.
Of course if the other problems were solved, they would have no need to offer "unlimited" data. Sprint isn't offering that because they are nice guys. They are offering it because they are getting their asses handed to them by Verizon and AT&T and it is a way to draw in customers that would otherwise go elsewhere.
From what I've heard, Sprint realized it was costing more to monitor and bill for data than the extra money they were receiving from the fines. It was actually cheaper to NOT monitor data.
And for the record, I'm on Sprint and I have absolutely no issues whatsoever. 4G is as fast or faster than what I get at home and I get 4G coverage from home to work. I use a ton of data and could ever afford AT&T or any other phone company that monitors my data.
How is my decision to eat less Chik-Fil-A different from your decision to eat more?
Have you ever said, "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll fight to death for your right to say it."?
If you have said it, you lied.
If you have not said this or anything similar to it, then my comment didn't apply to you. You are honest about not supporting people who have opinions different than your own and do your best to silence all who disagree with you so that America may one day be of one mind. All who oppose you, including their families, must be punished into submission and silenced until they think the same way you do. You are one who is proud to be against differing ideas and cultures and feel that everyone in the world should... no.... MUST think correct thoughts.
The Constitution doesn't grant us rights. We already had them. The Constitution limits the power of the government. That's all it does.
Um, that's the Bill of Rights, not the Constitution. The Bill of Rights restricts the government. The rest of The Constitution actually gives the federal government lots of power. For example, see Article 1, Section 8 for the powers given to Congress. There's a bit too much to quote, so I'll just quote the last one:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
This is also known as the "necessary and proper clause. ...all other Powers vested by this Constitution...
Why would the Constitution say this if it did not give any powers to the government?
Maybe try learning what it is so you don't sound like a jackass.
And the only HONEST reason why we'd need a "civil union" that's 100% equal to marriage but not marriage is to enshrine the religious bigotry of these Christians into law, which is expressly forbidden by the First Amendment.
Um, the First Amendment actually "enshrines the religious bigotry of these Christians into law" and forbids government from getting involved in religious concepts. If the federal government is not allowed to recognize the Ten Commandments, how can mandate licenses and set rules for marriage?
Let me ask you this: how does 2 guys or 2 women getting "married" affect you in any way?
It offends me.
How does drilling in ANWAR affect you in any way? How does a woman having or being denied an abortion in Texas affect you in any way? How does taxing rich people affect you in any way? I can do this all day, but I think you get the point. So don't give me that "how does it affect you" bullshit until you can answer these:
How does it affect you if the government calls your relation a civil union vs a marriage? Can you not have a wedding? Can you not wear a ring and tell everyone you are married? How does it make what you have any different?
The only difference I can see is that a civil union does not make me offended. But that's your whole point isn't it? You want to offend me and all Christians because you hate all Christians. Never mind that Muslims hang gays on the streets, they deserve to be heard and have their religious freedom, we must offend all Christians. And that's exactly why it will be held in a church. Democrats have already blocked a law protecting Chaplains in the US military from refusing to perform same sex marriages. How long do you think it will be before that same-sex couple sues the Catholic Church demanding "equal rights" to have a chapel wedding?
This isn't about equal rights. This is about getting even for perceived wrongs done to you. Tell me again how I am the bigot?
I don't believe that you have any gay friends
My mother owns a beauty salon that I worked in from before I was old enough to see over the counter. I know it's cliche to assume that gay me do hair, but it's a cliche for a reason. You have no idea how many gay friends I have. I have kinda grown up around them. I know what they are like, how they feel and what they are all about. And I feel they deserve equal rights under the law. But they do NOT have equal rights under religion. You don't have to like it. You don't have to be in a religion. But since freedom of religion is guaranteed under the Constitution, government has to respect it. By the way, can you tell me marriage is guaranteed in the Constitution? I can't find it anywhere.
I don't believe you have any religious friends. If you did, you wouldn't think they are all bigots.
And marriage is not just a Christian concept. It certainly predates Christianity. It appears to predate the earliest mentions of the Jews as far as the Bible goes. I would even say that the Bible agrees that civilization itself predates marriage as there is no mention in the Bible of Adam and Eve ever getting married. That doesn't mean shit as on July4, 1776, marriage was strictly a religious rite and carried no weight whatsoever in American law. It was, however being regulated by Jewish law in God knows what BC. So it was a religious rite for thousands of years before it was ever recognized by the United States Government. Sorry, but those are the facts.
I quoted a couple of your points here, but realized that I was pretty much quoting the entire thing.
Bingo!!! Marriage is a religious rite. Government has no business regulating or even recognizing a religious rite. However, there is a purpose to the government recognition of marriage, specifically taxes, shared property ownership, power of attorney, inheritance rights and so on, and I completely support gay couples gaining the same rights as straight couples. Those necessary results of government recognition of marriage could just as easily and equally be obtained if government recognized "civil unions" "legalized finger banging" or "neibersplat evernijula" or "hebeeshleebee itzu cowpoo". Does a rose by any other name not smell as sweet?
Like you said, I just don't like government redefining what has been a religious concept a thousand years before western culture, much less America or American law.
I plan on seeing the movie. During the Chick-Fil-A boycott, I ate more chicken sandwiches than at any point in my life!
It's not that I'm anti-gay. I think gay people are awesome. It's because I'm pro-Constitution. The Constitution says you have the right to free speech. Nowhere does it say you have the right to marry, straight, gay or otherwise.
I always used to hear liberals say "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll fight to death for your right to say it." It's amazing how fast that goes out the window when someone says something they view as "intolerant". I figure, if they're willing to claim to fight to the death for opposing views, the least I can do is enjoy a chicken sandwich with some waffle fries and see a movie I was interested in already.
the LGBT were angry about not being allowed to sign a contract covering what everybody else had covered (such as inheritance, common properties, pensions etc.), not about the provisions for polygamy or polyandry, and not about legal provisions for whom they can choose as sex partners, that was fixed a few years ago.
If that were true, they would have accepted a civil unions law that gave civil unions 100% equality with marriage. I have yet to meet a gay couple that would have accepted a civil union, even if it was legally equal to marriage in every way. Most would claim some bullshit about the "separate but equal" issues in the civil rights era, where a water fountain for blacks was dirty and unmaintained while the "white's only" water fountain was new and shiny. I call it bullshit because if a law says two things are equal, they are equal, period. It's not like inheritance laws for gays can get dirty or leak. These are not physical objects.
When I would explain that "separate but equal" only applies to physical objects, they would say that they wanted to be "married", not unionized. So I ask them was stopping them from putting on white dresses, saying vows, exchanging rings, smearing cake on each other's faces, throwing a party and telling everyone they know that they are married? What difference does it make what the government called it?
If you want to be married, be married. Marriage is about love, trust and commitment. It's not about inheritance rights, taxes and contracts. Why must you demand that government call your relationship a "marriage" when the "rights" part can be achieved with using that exact word? Their only HONEST response was they wanted to FORCE those bigoted Christians to recognize their marriage.
This is not about equal rights. If it were, they could have had it years ago with little resistance. This is about revenge and punishing those they hate; religious people.
Don't mod this down because you don't like it. Be an adult and reply with why you think I'm wrong.
The courts are not supposed to be above public opinion. This was and is supposed to be a nation for the people, by the people, of the people.
Laws are passed based on public opinion. Courts judge them based on the Constitution. Lady Liberty has a blindfold for a reason. If enough people feel strongly enough about an issue that is deemed unconstitutional, then the Constitution may be amended. For example, California held an election to in which the public opinion banned gay marriage. A court deemed that unconstitutional. Arizona has passed laws on immigration that were supported by public opinion that the court deemed unconstitutional.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you should less worried about the camera on a private citizens glasses that can only run for a few hours at a time and more worried about the government owned cameras on every street corner and the business's cameras in every corner of every building that run and record 24/7.
In fact, Apple II monitor code had a nifty reverse assembler built in.
I'm sure there are a lot of us that remember "CALL -151"... :-)
I remember that. For whatever reason 3d0g would get me out of it. I was just a kid and had no idea what to do with the gibberish that the assembler would spit out at me. I just knew how to get out and back to my prompt.
=As a former soldier, I don't want them to cut funding for air conditioning. Operating in climates with 120 F for months at a time is pretty hard, and the computers and equipment starts failing.
If US soldiers were not deployed in places they have no business being in the
first place, the need for air conditioning would drop drastically.
You mean places like California?
Fraud is the only viable reason for fighting against voter ID laws. Your opposition proves the need for such laws.
Does this level of ignorance come naturally for you or do you havve to try hard to achieve it?
I can give you at least one mor viable reason for fighting against the kind of voter ID laws that are implemented now:
They very clearly prevent the poor and less educated people from voting. Voter ID laws lead to more eligible voters not being able to vote than the amount of fraudulent votes prevented.
Politicians may claim that the implement these laws to stop voter fraud, but it's obvious they to it to prevent potential votes for the other party.
ID's for the purpose of voting are free if you can't afford them, and they'll even register you to vote at the same time. So tell me again how they stop the poor from voting?
Sorry, just space craft gone havok - problems with navigational guidance computer (running extraterrestrial version of Windows 8.1)
Actually, the space craft is running perfectly. It's solar powered and was running low on fuel. It's filling up before moving on..
How do you know how many people are voting under assumed names if you are not ID'ing them?
Fraud is the only viable reason for fighting against voter ID laws. Your opposition proves the need for such laws.
And they don't pay much taxes here.
When you say "they" do you mean Samsung or Apple because Apple pays more in corporate taxes than any other American corporation.
Apple's effective tax rate: 14%
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/25/sunday-review/corporate-taxes.html?_r=1&
You can vote for a new school board. Volunteer to help their election campaign. Or run for election yourself. You actually have MORE voice there than with a private school, where losing 1 customer is quite frankly not a big deal.
Oh, and my daughter's class has six students. Losing one of those students is a HUGE deal. How big of a deal is it to a public school if I pull my child out of an class room that I pay for no matter what, that is already overcrowded, doesn't have enough textbooks to go around and has a shortage of desks?
You can vote for a new school board. Volunteer to help their election campaign. Or run for election yourself. You actually have MORE voice there than with a private school, where losing 1 customer is quite frankly not a big deal.
Well, considering that the last school board election was decided by more than one vote, my voting would have made no difference. Sure, I could run myself, but I'd be running against some academia type who has the backing of the teacher's union, which make up the bulk of the school board voters anyway, because he/she won't make the teachers accountable. (I support vouchers and would never get elected) And even if I could start a campaign to elect school board members who would make schools and teachers accountable, how many years would my child have to go to a sub-standard school while my campaign gains traction, gets the right people elected, and positive changes can be proposed, approved and implemented?
Or, I can send my daughter to the school that I choose today, knowing that she'll have an incredible advantage over all those poor minority kids with parents that can't afford to send their kids to private school.
States are fictitious entities, and what exists in reality are individuals
Right! And half of those individuals have below average intelligence. I'll trust myself more than I trust those individuals, thank you.
First of all, private organizations use money unwisely all the time.
Yes, but when they do, you can take your money elsewhere. For example, if I were to find out that my daughter's private school was wasting money, I'd pull her out and send her to a different school. However, if I find out that my daughter's public school is wasting money, THERE IS NOTHING I CAN DO because I have to send her there or I go to jail, CPS takes my daughter away and sends her to the school anyway.
Love the sig, by the way.
Fox "News" is bad for your brain. Honest to shit.
I couldn't figure out whether Ethanol Fueled's "anonymous" reply post was troll or not until I clicked the link. Ethanol Fueled's post needs more points and visibility.
Forehead.picard.gif
--
BMO
Yes, the post is obviously a troll. If you weren't sure, look at the grandma part.
It's not a legitimate secret. It's a coverup of war crime. They are not the same thing.
Manning released over 10,000 documents. Are you sure he read them all and confirmed that every single of the 10,000 documents contained evidence of a war crime and made sure that the release would not help the enemy?
Don't get me wrong, if he read and verified every document he sent out, fine. That's not the case here.
But in China, 72.1% of the country's computers relied on the soon-to-retire operating system last month, or nearly three out of every four systems."
This is Slashdot. I think we can do the math on that one.
'Unlimited data' would get me over to them _if_ the other problems were solved.
Of course if the other problems were solved, they would have no need to offer "unlimited" data. Sprint isn't offering that because they are nice guys. They are offering it because they are getting their asses handed to them by Verizon and AT&T and it is a way to draw in customers that would otherwise go elsewhere.
From what I've heard, Sprint realized it was costing more to monitor and bill for data than the extra money they were receiving from the fines. It was actually cheaper to NOT monitor data.
And for the record, I'm on Sprint and I have absolutely no issues whatsoever. 4G is as fast or faster than what I get at home and I get 4G coverage from home to work. I use a ton of data and could ever afford AT&T or any other phone company that monitors my data.
I use a bicycle, you insensitive clod!
If you rode a motorcycle, you would eat plenty.
Show me a wild tomato that can grow without human cultivation and is as tasty as any modern tomato.
The currant tomatoes are wild and quite tasty. Matt's Wild Cherry is one of my favorites.
How is my decision to eat less Chik-Fil-A different from your decision to eat more?
Have you ever said, "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll fight to death for your right to say it."?
If you have said it, you lied.
If you have not said this or anything similar to it, then my comment didn't apply to you. You are honest about not supporting people who have opinions different than your own and do your best to silence all who disagree with you so that America may one day be of one mind. All who oppose you, including their families, must be punished into submission and silenced until they think the same way you do. You are one who is proud to be against differing ideas and cultures and feel that everyone in the world should... no.... MUST think correct thoughts.
The Constitution doesn't grant us rights. We already had them. The Constitution limits the power of the government. That's all it does.
Um, that's the Bill of Rights, not the Constitution. The Bill of Rights restricts the government. The rest of The Constitution actually gives the federal government lots of power. For example, see Article 1, Section 8 for the powers given to Congress. There's a bit too much to quote, so I'll just quote the last one:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
This is also known as the "necessary and proper clause.
...all other Powers vested by this Constitution...
Why would the Constitution say this if it did not give any powers to the government?
Maybe try learning what it is so you don't sound like a jackass.
May I suggest taking your own advice?
And the only HONEST reason why we'd need a "civil union" that's 100% equal to marriage but not marriage is to enshrine the religious bigotry of these Christians into law, which is expressly forbidden by the First Amendment.
Um, the First Amendment actually "enshrines the religious bigotry of these Christians into law" and forbids government from getting involved in religious concepts. If the federal government is not allowed to recognize the Ten Commandments, how can mandate licenses and set rules for marriage?
Let me ask you this: how does 2 guys or 2 women getting "married" affect you in any way?
It offends me.
How does drilling in ANWAR affect you in any way? How does a woman having or being denied an abortion in Texas affect you in any way? How does taxing rich people affect you in any way? I can do this all day, but I think you get the point. So don't give me that "how does it affect you" bullshit until you can answer these:
How does it affect you if the government calls your relation a civil union vs a marriage? Can you not have a wedding? Can you not wear a ring and tell everyone you are married? How does it make what you have any different?
The only difference I can see is that a civil union does not make me offended. But that's your whole point isn't it? You want to offend me and all Christians because you hate all Christians. Never mind that Muslims hang gays on the streets, they deserve to be heard and have their religious freedom, we must offend all Christians. And that's exactly why it will be held in a church. Democrats have already blocked a law protecting Chaplains in the US military from refusing to perform same sex marriages. How long do you think it will be before that same-sex couple sues the Catholic Church demanding "equal rights" to have a chapel wedding?
This isn't about equal rights. This is about getting even for perceived wrongs done to you. Tell me again how I am the bigot?
I don't believe that you have any gay friends
My mother owns a beauty salon that I worked in from before I was old enough to see over the counter. I know it's cliche to assume that gay me do hair, but it's a cliche for a reason. You have no idea how many gay friends I have. I have kinda grown up around them. I know what they are like, how they feel and what they are all about. And I feel they deserve equal rights under the law. But they do NOT have equal rights under religion. You don't have to like it. You don't have to be in a religion. But since freedom of religion is guaranteed under the Constitution, government has to respect it. By the way, can you tell me marriage is guaranteed in the Constitution? I can't find it anywhere.
I don't believe you have any religious friends. If you did, you wouldn't think they are all bigots.
And marriage is not just a Christian concept. It certainly predates Christianity. It appears to predate the earliest mentions of the Jews as far as the Bible goes. I would even say that the Bible agrees that civilization itself predates marriage as there is no mention in the Bible of Adam and Eve ever getting married. That doesn't mean shit as on July4, 1776, marriage was strictly a religious rite and carried no weight whatsoever in American law. It was, however being regulated by Jewish law in God knows what BC. So it was a religious rite for thousands of years before it was ever recognized by the United States Government. Sorry, but those are the facts.
I quoted a couple of your points here, but realized that I was pretty much quoting the entire thing.
Bingo!!! Marriage is a religious rite. Government has no business regulating or even recognizing a religious rite. However, there is a purpose to the government recognition of marriage, specifically taxes, shared property ownership, power of attorney, inheritance rights and so on, and I completely support gay couples gaining the same rights as straight couples. Those necessary results of government recognition of marriage could just as easily and equally be obtained if government recognized "civil unions" "legalized finger banging" or "neibersplat evernijula" or "hebeeshleebee itzu cowpoo". Does a rose by any other name not smell as sweet?
Like you said, I just don't like government redefining what has been a religious concept a thousand years before western culture, much less America or American law.
Bingo. Picking on Card GUARANTEES a repeat of the "Chik-Fil-A" effect. For most Chik-Fil-A restaurants, they achieved record sales during the boycott, and elevated sales afterwards. . .
I plan on seeing the movie. During the Chick-Fil-A boycott, I ate more chicken sandwiches than at any point in my life!
It's not that I'm anti-gay. I think gay people are awesome. It's because I'm pro-Constitution. The Constitution says you have the right to free speech. Nowhere does it say you have the right to marry, straight, gay or otherwise.
I always used to hear liberals say "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll fight to death for your right to say it." It's amazing how fast that goes out the window when someone says something they view as "intolerant". I figure, if they're willing to claim to fight to the death for opposing views, the least I can do is enjoy a chicken sandwich with some waffle fries and see a movie I was interested in already.
the LGBT were angry about not being allowed to sign a contract covering what everybody else had covered (such as inheritance, common properties, pensions etc.), not about the provisions for polygamy or polyandry, and not about legal provisions for whom they can choose as sex partners, that was fixed a few years ago.
If that were true, they would have accepted a civil unions law that gave civil unions 100% equality with marriage. I have yet to meet a gay couple that would have accepted a civil union, even if it was legally equal to marriage in every way. Most would claim some bullshit about the "separate but equal" issues in the civil rights era, where a water fountain for blacks was dirty and unmaintained while the "white's only" water fountain was new and shiny. I call it bullshit because if a law says two things are equal, they are equal, period. It's not like inheritance laws for gays can get dirty or leak. These are not physical objects.
When I would explain that "separate but equal" only applies to physical objects, they would say that they wanted to be "married", not unionized. So I ask them was stopping them from putting on white dresses, saying vows, exchanging rings, smearing cake on each other's faces, throwing a party and telling everyone they know that they are married? What difference does it make what the government called it?
If you want to be married, be married. Marriage is about love, trust and commitment. It's not about inheritance rights, taxes and contracts. Why must you demand that government call your relationship a "marriage" when the "rights" part can be achieved with using that exact word? Their only HONEST response was they wanted to FORCE those bigoted Christians to recognize their marriage.
This is not about equal rights. If it were, they could have had it years ago with little resistance. This is about revenge and punishing those they hate; religious people.
Don't mod this down because you don't like it. Be an adult and reply with why you think I'm wrong.
The courts are not supposed to be above public opinion. This was and is supposed to be a nation for the people, by the people, of the people.
Laws are passed based on public opinion. Courts judge them based on the Constitution. Lady Liberty has a blindfold for a reason. If enough people feel strongly enough about an issue that is deemed unconstitutional, then the Constitution may be amended. For example, California held an election to in which the public opinion banned gay marriage. A court deemed that unconstitutional. Arizona has passed laws on immigration that were supported by public opinion that the court deemed unconstitutional.