OK, but does it predate religion. The Jews were around long before Rome was an empire. There is more than one religion in the US, and of the top three, all consider marriage to be a religious rite more than a legal one.
Also, the Roman Empire had slavery. Just because it was around long ago, doesn't mean we should have it today.
Yes, marriage predates Christianity. Does it predate religion?
Given that swans marry for life, and gay swans marry other gay swans, I'm gonna go with, "yes."
I realize lots of religions try to pretend that "civil union" is different than marriage but it's not. Adding new terms to language to describe the same thing only adds confusion. Please stop.
Either way, marriage is NOT a function of government. It predates all government, even mankind if we use your own example. Civil unions, on the other hand, are a government creation. I have no problem recognizing the civil union between two people, regardless of gender no more than I would have a problem recognizing any other contract. But that's just it, to me, and the majority of California, at least, marriage is much more than a simple contract, much more than law itself.
So I don't care if two men or two women have a civil union. Hell, I don't care if they want to call it a marriage. They can have a wedding in a church for all I care. I just don't want to be legally bound to recognize it (I would, but that's my choice), nor do I want my church sued for refusing to perform the ceremony.
Senator. Tom Coburn: If I wanted to sponsor a bill and it said, "Americans, you have to eat three vegetables and three fruits - every day. And I got it through Congress and it's now the law of the land. Tsk. Gotta do it. Does that violate the commerce clause?
Elena Kagan: Sounds like a dumb law
Coburn: Yeah, I got one that's real similar to it that I think is equally dumb. I'm not going to mention which one it is.
Kagan: But I think that the question about whether it is a dumb law is different from the question of whether the question of it's constitutional.And , and uh, and uh, I think the courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are, er, uh, senseless, just because they're senseless.
Senator Coburn: Well, I think the question is. Do we have the power to tell people what to eat every day?
Kagan: eh, Sen, Senator Coburn... i, it's, uh stuttering
Sen. Coburn: What is the extent of the commerce clause? We have the wide embrace of the commerce of clause - which these guys who wrote this never ever fathomed that we would be so stupid to take away our liberties away by expanding the commerce clause this way.
1) [Citation Needed] 2) Even if you can prove that, Christianity is not the only religion opposed to gay marriage. Yes, marriage predates Christianity. Does it predate religion?
If we are going to uphold the idea of separation of Church and State we need to accept that Religion covers more ground than just Protestants vs. Catholics.
Right, like I said before, Christianity is not the only religion that is opposed to gay marriage. Christianity is not the only religion to consider marriage to be sacred. This is NOT a Christianity thing, so check your Christian bashing at the door, please. What do you think would happen if Steve and Eric walked into a Mosque and asked to be wed?
Finally, like I said before, the gov't should get out of the marriage business. If you want to get "married", fine, but it will hold no legal weight and no one has to "marry" you or recognize your "marriage" by law if they don't want to. What is currently called "marriage" should be legally renamed to "civil union" and carry all the legal privileges and responsibilities currently tied to marriage. All currently married couples would be seen as "civil unionized" (or whatever).
I found it hilarious how pissed people were that she gave textbook answers during her hearings while simultaneously complaining that she would judge based on her opinions.
Aren't textbook answers the opposite of opinions?
PS: An activist judge is a judge who makes a ruling that you disagree with.
What textbook says "I don't know" to the question, "Can the federal government tell citizens what to eat?"?
Um, from a 2nd amendment standpoint, if you're not in a well regulated militia you have precisely zero right to be armed. Practically speaking the UK has been getting more and more ridiculous and they do have a complete ban on firearms.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
You could read this two ways: 1) You can keep and bear arms if you are a member of a well regulated militia. (as you said) 2) A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state AND the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Since the government has spent a lot of time cracking down on militias, I'd say that negates #1, leaving us with #2, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed.
No you just thought it was a good idea because they chose your guy. It was an extremely blatant violation of the US constitution to do so. Specifically the twelfth amendment specifies what should be done when the electoral college fails to come to a result. Intervening to name a winner was the most extreme act of judicial activism I can think of. Ruling in favor of the guy who ultimately was shown to not have the votes was extremely poor judgment. Not to mention that the SCOTUS doesn't get to make non-precedence rulings.
Um, actually, independent recounts have shown that GWB truly did win the election. The problem was that Democrats wanted to keep changing the rules and recounting until Gore won, also know as "trying to steal the election". All the Supreme Court did was stop the endless recounts.
Yeah, what a great governor -- executing mentally retarded felons.
Um, those "mentally retarded felons" were tried, convicted and sentenced well before GWB was ever the governor. The criticism you are hurling at GWB could just as easily be directed to Ann Richards, the Democrat governor of Texas before GWB.
Strange that you only criticize GWB. Take the following for example:
President Clinton took time off from his 1992 campaign to be in Arkansas for the execution of killer Rickey Ray Rector. He was so brain damaged from a suicide attempt that he asked guards to set aside his piece of pecan pie so he could eat it after his execution, according to the New York Times.
It doesn't help that the other half of congress think party and skin color is what drives the others to oppose the president's agenda.
I've seen little proof otherwise. Their blantly transparent appointment of Micheal Steele as party chairman to insulate themselves from all their members basically shouting the N-word was pathetic.
Hey, if you can get a video of that, you can make $100,000 for the United Negro College Fund. Should be easy, considering all the cameras there that video taped the whole thing. I find it strange that no one has taken Breitbart up on that challenge.
As to the claim you repeating, it was directed to TEA Party members, not the Republican party. At least get your baseless accusations correct.
In other words, PICTURES, OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Or, to modify the meme, Pictures, or you are lying!
Let me get this straight, the party that openly advances homophobia, islamaphobia and racism to get votes somehow is more respectful of the President? Sorry, I can't buy that. Given the amount of focus they've put on his birthplace, alleged link to Islam, I find it very hard to believe that race doesn't figure in prominently into it.
Sorry, none of the things you have mentioned are part of the party platform.
Take racism for example. I'm sure Michael Steele will be shocked to find that the party he leads advances racism.
Don't I recall GWB holding hands with an Islamic Saudi Prince? (Islamaphobia, as with all things that start with Islam, should be capitalized)
Homophobia? I'm sure Dick Cheney hates all homo's. I'm sure his daughter does as well. I think the problem is that homosexuals demand the right to marry. See, marriage is a religious institution to most folk. It was around long before the US government. We see allowing gay marriage to be like the government forcing churches to allow Muslims and atheists to take communion. It's an insult to religion. However, as we understand that there are certain governmental benefits to marriage, we see their point. Most Republicans would be happy to allow all governmental benefits to gay couples joined in some sort of "civil union", but even that has been refused by the gay community. I have spoken to homosexuals who have openly stated that they want it to be called "marriage". Nothing less will do. (Personally, I believe government should not recognize any marriages at all and convert all current marriages to "civil unions".)
Care to try to place any other stereotypes on Republicans? Go ahead. All it really does is further support my claim that it's not Republicans with the bigotry problem. Unfortunately, it's people like you who are the bigots. See, by accusing all Republicans of being bigots, you are displaying bigotry yourself. You truly are what you claim to hate about those with whom you disagree. How's it feel to be a bigot?
Did the test include shooting at the crew? I'm sure they'll find that sitting nearly motionless over a well-armed enemy does not make airship pilots invincible.
This was a test for military use. The military's plans for use in Afghanistan is for an unmanned, reconnaissance vehicle. No crew required.
If being an "idiot stock trader" who makes millions is so easy, why aren't you doing it?
Ethics.
So you think that investing retirement funds for hard working Americans is unethical? What do you think happens to all that IRA/401k money? Are the guys that try to grow grandma's money so she doesn't have to sell the house unethical?
**DISCLOSURE** I do not work for a financial firm. However, my younger brother is a programmer for one.
Dude, you are clueless. When these expert traders f up they still get their money. It might take months or years for their bad choices to surface but in the meantime they get their commissions and bonuses. Do you think they pay that money back????
OK, let's say you have an extra $20 million to invest in the market. Are you going to invest via the broker that f'ed up months or years ago (now that their bad choices have surfaced), or are you going to invest in the guy(s) that have a good track record? Of course, you're not going to go with the guy that has made bad choices. Your $20 million, plus the thousands of other investors with extra cash laying around that will make the same decision you do, mean millions in lost commission from the guy that screwed up, even if he was paid for the original screw up.
Next, you are a manager at a major financial trading firm. You got a guy in the trenches making decisions that have cost your clients millions or even billions. When your clients lose money, they don't have extra cash to invest in the future, meaning your company loses money and YOU lose money. How long are you going to keep this guy around? Is he going to be one of the guys you give bonuses to, promote and invite to that dinner party your wife holds to keep busy?
In other words, even if traders make money on bad trades, they will lose money, possibly all of it, in the long run if they make bad trades. It takes several "attaboys" to make up for each "Oh sh*t".
Did someone order waaaaaamburgers and french cries?
And you really think the colleagues using the software were footing the bill? Bullshit. It's about time developers stood up and demanded compensation for their inventions instead of letting idiot stock traders reap the rewards by pushing a few buttons.
The stock traders make what they do because they know what buttons to push and when. If they push the wrong button at the wrong time, they stand to lose millions for their clients and themselves. These programs have no idea as to when to buy, sell or hold. All they do is retrieve data and analyze it into reports. It's up to the trader to know what to do with it.
If being an "idiot stock trader" who makes millions is so easy, why aren't you doing it? You can push a few buttons, right?
If I'm paying a lot of money for a car in order to have threesomes with barely legal chicks. I'm getting a gas guzzling Bugatti to attract shallow hot chicks that will shave their legs and pits.
Well, for starters, the hippie chicks have shaved all the hair off their bodies to donate to the gulf clean up effort.
Next, this is the perfect car. First, it's an insanely expensive and fast Porsche, so you still get the hot, shallow chicks. But in the off chance you see that college student chick with a fresh dolphin tattoo who is in the experimental stage trying to define herself at the local "Save the Blind Salamander" protest (yes, a real protest I saw in San Marcos, TX), you also stand a chance with her because this car provides you with the green creds needed to get the ball rolling. (Bonus if your three way is with the hot shallow chick AND the hippie.)
There is no chick of any political persuasion that can resist who can resist a Porsche that gets 78 MPG.
The article was very light on details. Why was the weapon scrapped? Why was it never tested in a real world scenario as a non-lethal measure. The truth is that as much as the military is against non-lethal weapons, they can actually save lives on both sides and help in the winning of the war at the same time because you have less casualties which tend to cause the other side to galvanize against you.
This was not meant to be used against the enemy or anyone else on the "other side". This was intended as a non-lethal crowd control measure.
Shooting into a crowd is bad press and will certainly galvanize a population against you, making them enemies. This "heat ray" eliminates the news story about the 10-yr-old kid who was shot in the head by a ricochet bullet (reported as intentional genocide by the press) with his crying mother screaming over his lifeless body.
So when the angry crowds form over the aid tent that was accidentally bombed, you have three options: 1) Fired into the crowd, dispersing them, but causing more crowds to form all over the world. 2) Hold you position and get torn to little pieces by the angry crowd or the actual enemy who is dispersed among the crowd, encouraging them. 3) Run, encouraging the enemy to stage protests at other strategic locations.
I prefer option four: 4) Utilize something like this heat ray and disperse the crowd in a harmless fashion until the local political leaders get control of the situation.
Uhhh... Newsflash: this moral panic was brought to you by social conservatives. You know, people who almost always vote Republican.
And the previous comment was brought to you by the willfully ignorant and political ideology blinded. However, it's not too late as he can still read the article, but I can't guarantee that anything will ever open his mind.. Here's a snippet that may help him get educated.
"But theory doesn't always mesh with political practice. More than 70 House Democrats sent a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski instructing him to abandon his Net neutrality plans. A majority of Congress now opposes Genachowski's proposals."
and
"The new bill--called the Freedom for Consumer Choice Act, or FCC Act--doesn't eliminate the FCC's power over broadband providers. But that power would be narrowed in scope, and come to resemble the antitrust enforcement power of the Department of Justice."
Nice. So, we don't have money for the unemployed, for the ill, or even for veterans benefits, but we can afford laser systems to shoot down planes for imaginary invasions.
Seventy percent of the defense industry is a private set of corporations whose economic incentive is to discover (or invent) threats, and then sell the government the contract to fight this imaginary enemy. Sounds like a nice recipe for solutions that exacerbate the underlying problems, and not by accident.
First of all, the people who created this have jobs, jobs they otherwise wouldn't have.
Next, as a former soldier myself, I can tell you that we are very appreciative of the best equipment money can buy. You know, because it saves our lives and all. I figure that paying for that is very least I and the rest of the tax payers can do for those that are willing to lay down their lives so you can complain about it freely.
The best passwords I've used are non-dictionary but pronounceable words. The simplest way to generate one is to alternate consonants and vowels, for example 'lasopedi'. It's easy to remember because your brain can store it as a word, not as a random series of letters. You can add uppercase letters, symbols, or numbers if you want it more complex, like 'lasoPedi2!', which is still pretty easy to remember.
The best passwords I've found are sentences translated into passwords. For example:
My phone number is 555-234-2344 : Mp#i555-234-2344 I live at 2202 Park Street : Il@2202PSt Four score and seven years ago : 4Sa7ya... My wife won't go down on me since we got married! : Mww'tgdomswgm!
Whatever. You get the idea. All you have to remember is the sentence.
First, Ubuntu is not Linux. Sure, it is a Linux distro, but it is not the only one. If you don't like the Ubuntu update schedule, try another Distro with a less frequent update schedule or simply don't update and stick with the LTS. Many people are still using Felching Foxhound or Chirping Chipmunk or whatever with no problems.
As for customers wanting hardware compatible hardware... well, couldn't that be your job? Since you are in the business of selling this stuff, you could carry stuff that is compatible and ensure to your customers what works and what doesn't. Sounds like an opportunity that you are missing out on. People will buy hardware from you because you can show them it working on a Linux box. This is something that Best Buy won't do.
As for compatibility, nearly every piece of hardware I own is compatible with Linux. That includes the usual video cards, keyboards and mice to the more difficult to make work printers, scanners and webcams. For that matter, the old printer that worked great in XP for some reason doesn't work in Windows7. I've never had a Linux update break a hardware driver. Windows, on the other hand is well known. I have an old AMD, AGP A-bit motherboard. A very popular board in its day. Worked great in both Linux and XP. Since upgrading to the latest Ubuntu, everything still works. In Windows7, however, the processor scaling doesn't work for some reason. Worked great in XP, works great in Linux, but Windows7 tells me that it is not compatible with Windows. Strange, it worked before.
I'm a Mac user, but I certainly wouldn't hesitate to recommend Ubuntu to someone new to using computers. It really is as simple to use as Windows, and repositories are huge win for usability and security.
I'm an advanced user and I don't every want to know what a repository is. My mom definitely doesn't give a shit.
You don't have to know what a repo is. The default works just fine for 99.999% of users. However, if you are curious and want something the repo doesn't offer, you are free to add whatever repos you like.
"blocked from receiving information" is a really, extremely loose standard.
Have you seen the full JFK assassination file? Because I haven't. Their website says the last of it can be held until 2017, so I'm guessing (unless you're Barrack Obama) that you are blocked from receiving information by your government as well.
No, but I've seen countless documentaries on it blaming everyone from the CIA to Castro. How many Tienanmen Square documentaries do think are aired on China TV?
As far as dissidents being shot by the government, well, in recent US history we have Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc. It is sort of rare, but it does happen.
Ruby Ridge was bad. But Waco? This guy was holding hundreds hostage and attempted to burn down the building around them. The US Gov't screwed it up pretty bad, but they did have a court order that allowed them to enter. They should have just tried knocking first instead of kicking the door in.
When it comes to 'relatively', and once you factor billions vs millions, I do wonder which government has actually killed more people, as a ratio. I'm not confident what the result would be, but it would be interesting to see someone actually do the math.
Unless you are considering the Civil War, the US gov't has not killed millions. Besides, the GP was comparing Gitmo to China. For starters, there are no US Citizens at Gitmo. Next, those at Gitmo are accused of terrorism. Those in China have not been accused of anything except living in China.
Please do let us know once you have that completed.
Again, the GP was comparing Gitmo to China. Please explain to me how the population of Gitmo is greater than the population of China. Also, see my paragraph above where I explain how those are Gitmo are accused of being terrorist vs the "crimes" the population of China has committed.
Seriously? Do honestly believe that those in the US are as oppressed as those in China? Before you answer, consider I am in the US, reading and replying on an open forum accusing the US government of doing something bad. I think that alone should prove my point.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, but does it predate religion. The Jews were around long before Rome was an empire. There is more than one religion in the US, and of the top three, all consider marriage to be a religious rite more than a legal one.
Also, the Roman Empire had slavery. Just because it was around long ago, doesn't mean we should have it today.
Read my earlier post.
Given that swans marry for life, and gay swans marry other gay swans, I'm gonna go with, "yes."
I realize lots of religions try to pretend that "civil union" is different than marriage but it's not. Adding new terms to language to describe the same thing only adds confusion. Please stop.
Either way, marriage is NOT a function of government. It predates all government, even mankind if we use your own example. Civil unions, on the other hand, are a government creation. I have no problem recognizing the civil union between two people, regardless of gender no more than I would have a problem recognizing any other contract. But that's just it, to me, and the majority of California, at least, marriage is much more than a simple contract, much more than law itself.
So I don't care if two men or two women have a civil union. Hell, I don't care if they want to call it a marriage. They can have a wedding in a church for all I care. I just don't want to be legally bound to recognize it (I would, but that's my choice), nor do I want my church sued for refusing to perform the ceremony.
Really? Her entire answer was "I don't know"? Got any proof of that?
More or less. See for yourself:
See HERE
Senator. Tom Coburn: If I wanted to sponsor a bill and it said, "Americans, you have to eat three vegetables and three fruits - every day. And I got it through Congress and it's now the law of the land. Tsk. Gotta do it. Does that violate the commerce clause?
Elena Kagan: Sounds like a dumb law
Coburn: Yeah, I got one that's real similar to it that I think is equally dumb. I'm not going to mention which one it is.
Kagan: But I think that the question about whether it is a dumb law is different from the question of whether the question of it's constitutional.And , and uh, and uh, I think the courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are, er, uh, senseless, just because they're senseless.
Senator Coburn: Well, I think the question is. Do we have the power to tell people what to eat every day?
Kagan: eh, Sen, Senator Coburn... i, it's, uh stuttering
Sen. Coburn: What is the extent of the commerce clause? We have the wide embrace of the commerce of clause - which these guys who wrote this never ever fathomed that we would be so stupid to take away our liberties away by expanding the commerce clause this way.
Gay marriage predates Christianity.
1) [Citation Needed]
2) Even if you can prove that, Christianity is not the only religion opposed to gay marriage. Yes, marriage predates Christianity. Does it predate religion?
If we are going to uphold the idea of separation of Church and State we need to accept that Religion covers more ground than just Protestants vs. Catholics.
Right, like I said before, Christianity is not the only religion that is opposed to gay marriage. Christianity is not the only religion to consider marriage to be sacred. This is NOT a Christianity thing, so check your Christian bashing at the door, please. What do you think would happen if Steve and Eric walked into a Mosque and asked to be wed?
Finally, like I said before, the gov't should get out of the marriage business. If you want to get "married", fine, but it will hold no legal weight and no one has to "marry" you or recognize your "marriage" by law if they don't want to. What is currently called "marriage" should be legally renamed to "civil union" and carry all the legal privileges and responsibilities currently tied to marriage. All currently married couples would be seen as "civil unionized" (or whatever).
I found it hilarious how pissed people were that she gave textbook answers during her hearings while simultaneously complaining that she would judge based on her opinions.
Aren't textbook answers the opposite of opinions?
PS: An activist judge is a judge who makes a ruling that you disagree with.
What textbook says "I don't know" to the question, "Can the federal government tell citizens what to eat?"?
Um, from a 2nd amendment standpoint, if you're not in a well regulated militia you have precisely zero right to be armed. Practically speaking the UK has been getting more and more ridiculous and they do have a complete ban on firearms.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
You could read this two ways:
1) You can keep and bear arms if you are a member of a well regulated militia. (as you said)
2) A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state AND the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Since the government has spent a lot of time cracking down on militias, I'd say that negates #1, leaving us with #2, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed.
No you just thought it was a good idea because they chose your guy. It was an extremely blatant violation of the US constitution to do so. Specifically the twelfth amendment specifies what should be done when the electoral college fails to come to a result. Intervening to name a winner was the most extreme act of judicial activism I can think of. Ruling in favor of the guy who ultimately was shown to not have the votes was extremely poor judgment. Not to mention that the SCOTUS doesn't get to make non-precedence rulings.
Um, actually, independent recounts have shown that GWB truly did win the election. The problem was that Democrats wanted to keep changing the rules and recounting until Gore won, also know as "trying to steal the election". All the Supreme Court did was stop the endless recounts.
Yeah, what a great governor -- executing mentally retarded felons.
Um, those "mentally retarded felons" were tried, convicted and sentenced well before GWB was ever the governor. The criticism you are hurling at GWB could just as easily be directed to Ann Richards, the Democrat governor of Texas before GWB.
Strange that you only criticize GWB. Take the following for example:
President Clinton took time off from his 1992 campaign to be in Arkansas for the execution of killer Rickey Ray Rector. He was so brain damaged from a suicide attempt that he asked guards to set aside his piece of pecan pie so he could eat it after his execution, according to the New York Times.
I've seen little proof otherwise. Their blantly transparent appointment of Micheal Steele as party chairman to insulate themselves from all their members basically shouting the N-word was pathetic.
Hey, if you can get a video of that, you can make $100,000 for the United Negro College Fund. Should be easy, considering all the cameras there that video taped the whole thing. I find it strange that no one has taken Breitbart up on that challenge.
As to the claim you repeating, it was directed to TEA Party members, not the Republican party. At least get your baseless accusations correct.
In other words, PICTURES, OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Or, to modify the meme, Pictures, or you are lying!
Let me get this straight, the party that openly advances homophobia, islamaphobia and racism to get votes somehow is more respectful of the President? Sorry, I can't buy that. Given the amount of focus they've put on his birthplace, alleged link to Islam, I find it very hard to believe that race doesn't figure in prominently into it.
Sorry, none of the things you have mentioned are part of the party platform.
Take racism for example. I'm sure Michael Steele will be shocked to find that the party he leads advances racism.
Don't I recall GWB holding hands with an Islamic Saudi Prince? (Islamaphobia, as with all things that start with Islam, should be capitalized)
Homophobia? I'm sure Dick Cheney hates all homo's. I'm sure his daughter does as well. I think the problem is that homosexuals demand the right to marry. See, marriage is a religious institution to most folk. It was around long before the US government. We see allowing gay marriage to be like the government forcing churches to allow Muslims and atheists to take communion. It's an insult to religion. However, as we understand that there are certain governmental benefits to marriage, we see their point. Most Republicans would be happy to allow all governmental benefits to gay couples joined in some sort of "civil union", but even that has been refused by the gay community. I have spoken to homosexuals who have openly stated that they want it to be called "marriage". Nothing less will do. (Personally, I believe government should not recognize any marriages at all and convert all current marriages to "civil unions".)
Care to try to place any other stereotypes on Republicans? Go ahead. All it really does is further support my claim that it's not Republicans with the bigotry problem. Unfortunately, it's people like you who are the bigots. See, by accusing all Republicans of being bigots, you are displaying bigotry yourself. You truly are what you claim to hate about those with whom you disagree. How's it feel to be a bigot?
Did the test include shooting at the crew? I'm sure they'll find that sitting nearly motionless over a well-armed enemy does not make airship pilots invincible.
This was a test for military use. The military's plans for use in Afghanistan is for an unmanned, reconnaissance vehicle. No crew required.
If being an "idiot stock trader" who makes millions is so easy, why aren't you doing it?
Ethics.
So you think that investing retirement funds for hard working Americans is unethical? What do you think happens to all that IRA/401k money? Are the guys that try to grow grandma's money so she doesn't have to sell the house unethical?
**DISCLOSURE**
I do not work for a financial firm. However, my younger brother is a programmer for one.
Dude, you are clueless. When these expert traders f up they still get their money. It might take months or years for their bad choices to surface but in the meantime they get their commissions and bonuses. Do you think they pay that money back????
OK, let's say you have an extra $20 million to invest in the market. Are you going to invest via the broker that f'ed up months or years ago (now that their bad choices have surfaced), or are you going to invest in the guy(s) that have a good track record? Of course, you're not going to go with the guy that has made bad choices. Your $20 million, plus the thousands of other investors with extra cash laying around that will make the same decision you do, mean millions in lost commission from the guy that screwed up, even if he was paid for the original screw up.
Next, you are a manager at a major financial trading firm. You got a guy in the trenches making decisions that have cost your clients millions or even billions. When your clients lose money, they don't have extra cash to invest in the future, meaning your company loses money and YOU lose money. How long are you going to keep this guy around? Is he going to be one of the guys you give bonuses to, promote and invite to that dinner party your wife holds to keep busy?
In other words, even if traders make money on bad trades, they will lose money, possibly all of it, in the long run if they make bad trades. It takes several "attaboys" to make up for each "Oh sh*t".
And you really think the colleagues using the software were footing the bill? Bullshit. It's about time developers stood up and demanded compensation for their inventions instead of letting idiot stock traders reap the rewards by pushing a few buttons.
The stock traders make what they do because they know what buttons to push and when. If they push the wrong button at the wrong time, they stand to lose millions for their clients and themselves. These programs have no idea as to when to buy, sell or hold. All they do is retrieve data and analyze it into reports. It's up to the trader to know what to do with it.
If being an "idiot stock trader" who makes millions is so easy, why aren't you doing it? You can push a few buttons, right?
If I'm paying a lot of money for a car in order to have threesomes with barely legal chicks. I'm getting a gas guzzling Bugatti to attract shallow hot chicks that will shave their legs and pits.
Well, for starters, the hippie chicks have shaved all the hair off their bodies to donate to the gulf clean up effort.
Next, this is the perfect car. First, it's an insanely expensive and fast Porsche, so you still get the hot, shallow chicks. But in the off chance you see that college student chick with a fresh dolphin tattoo who is in the experimental stage trying to define herself at the local "Save the Blind Salamander" protest (yes, a real protest I saw in San Marcos, TX), you also stand a chance with her because this car provides you with the green creds needed to get the ball rolling. (Bonus if your three way is with the hot shallow chick AND the hippie.)
There is no chick of any political persuasion that can resist who can resist a Porsche that gets 78 MPG.
They aren't paying that much to save gas money.
They're paying that much to feel better about themselves for "helping" the environment.
No, they are paying that much so they can have 3-ways with 19-yr old hippie chicks. Wish I could afford to do that.
Would someone create a list that only contains public profiles with NSFW images?
Thanx
The article was very light on details. Why was the weapon scrapped? Why was it never tested in a real world scenario as a non-lethal measure. The truth is that as much as the military is against non-lethal weapons, they can actually save lives on both sides and help in the winning of the war at the same time because you have less casualties which tend to cause the other side to galvanize against you.
This was not meant to be used against the enemy or anyone else on the "other side". This was intended as a non-lethal crowd control measure.
Shooting into a crowd is bad press and will certainly galvanize a population against you, making them enemies. This "heat ray" eliminates the news story about the 10-yr-old kid who was shot in the head by a ricochet bullet (reported as intentional genocide by the press) with his crying mother screaming over his lifeless body.
So when the angry crowds form over the aid tent that was accidentally bombed, you have three options:
1) Fired into the crowd, dispersing them, but causing more crowds to form all over the world.
2) Hold you position and get torn to little pieces by the angry crowd or the actual enemy who is dispersed among the crowd, encouraging them.
3) Run, encouraging the enemy to stage protests at other strategic locations.
I prefer option four:
4) Utilize something like this heat ray and disperse the crowd in a harmless fashion until the local political leaders get control of the situation.
Uhhh... Newsflash: this moral panic was brought to you by social conservatives. You know, people who almost always vote Republican.
And the previous comment was brought to you by the willfully ignorant and political ideology blinded. However, it's not too late as he can still read the article, but I can't guarantee that anything will ever open his mind.. Here's a snippet that may help him get educated.
"But theory doesn't always mesh with political practice. More than 70 House Democrats sent a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski instructing him to abandon his Net neutrality plans. A majority of Congress now opposes Genachowski's proposals."
and
"The new bill--called the Freedom for Consumer Choice Act, or FCC Act--doesn't eliminate the FCC's power over broadband providers. But that power would be narrowed in scope, and come to resemble the antitrust enforcement power of the Department of Justice."
Nice. So, we don't have money for the unemployed, for the ill, or even for veterans benefits, but we can afford laser systems to shoot down planes for imaginary invasions.
Seventy percent of the defense industry is a private set of corporations whose economic incentive is to discover (or invent) threats, and then sell the government the contract to fight this imaginary enemy. Sounds like a nice recipe for solutions that exacerbate the underlying problems, and not by accident.
First of all, the people who created this have jobs, jobs they otherwise wouldn't have.
Next, as a former soldier myself, I can tell you that we are very appreciative of the best equipment money can buy. You know, because it saves our lives and all. I figure that paying for that is very least I and the rest of the tax payers can do for those that are willing to lay down their lives so you can complain about it freely.
The best passwords I've used are non-dictionary but pronounceable words. The simplest way to generate one is to alternate consonants and vowels, for example 'lasopedi'. It's easy to remember because your brain can store it as a word, not as a random series of letters. You can add uppercase letters, symbols, or numbers if you want it more complex, like 'lasoPedi2!', which is still pretty easy to remember.
The best passwords I've found are sentences translated into passwords. For example:
My phone number is 555-234-2344 : Mp#i555-234-2344
I live at 2202 Park Street : Il@2202PSt
Four score and seven years ago : 4Sa7ya...
My wife won't go down on me since we got married! : Mww'tgdomswgm!
Whatever. You get the idea. All you have to remember is the sentence.
First, Ubuntu is not Linux. Sure, it is a Linux distro, but it is not the only one. If you don't like the Ubuntu update schedule, try another Distro with a less frequent update schedule or simply don't update and stick with the LTS. Many people are still using Felching Foxhound or Chirping Chipmunk or whatever with no problems.
As for customers wanting hardware compatible hardware... well, couldn't that be your job? Since you are in the business of selling this stuff, you could carry stuff that is compatible and ensure to your customers what works and what doesn't. Sounds like an opportunity that you are missing out on. People will buy hardware from you because you can show them it working on a Linux box. This is something that Best Buy won't do.
As for compatibility, nearly every piece of hardware I own is compatible with Linux. That includes the usual video cards, keyboards and mice to the more difficult to make work printers, scanners and webcams. For that matter, the old printer that worked great in XP for some reason doesn't work in Windows7. I've never had a Linux update break a hardware driver. Windows, on the other hand is well known. I have an old AMD, AGP A-bit motherboard. A very popular board in its day. Worked great in both Linux and XP. Since upgrading to the latest Ubuntu, everything still works. In Windows7, however, the processor scaling doesn't work for some reason. Worked great in XP, works great in Linux, but Windows7 tells me that it is not compatible with Windows. Strange, it worked before.
I'm a Mac user, but I certainly wouldn't hesitate to recommend Ubuntu to someone new to using computers. It really is as simple to use as Windows, and repositories are huge win for usability and security.
I'm an advanced user and I don't every want to know what a repository is. My mom definitely doesn't give a shit.
You don't have to know what a repo is. The default works just fine for 99.999% of users. However, if you are curious and want something the repo doesn't offer, you are free to add whatever repos you like.
Then again, an "advanced" user would know this.
"blocked from receiving information" is a really, extremely loose standard.
Have you seen the full JFK assassination file? Because I haven't. Their website says the last of it can be held until 2017, so I'm guessing (unless you're Barrack Obama) that you are blocked from receiving information by your government as well.
No, but I've seen countless documentaries on it blaming everyone from the CIA to Castro. How many Tienanmen Square documentaries do think are aired on China TV?
As far as dissidents being shot by the government, well, in recent US history we have Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc. It is sort of rare, but it does happen.
Ruby Ridge was bad. But Waco? This guy was holding hundreds hostage and attempted to burn down the building around them. The US Gov't screwed it up pretty bad, but they did have a court order that allowed them to enter. They should have just tried knocking first instead of kicking the door in.
When it comes to 'relatively', and once you factor billions vs millions, I do wonder which government has actually killed more people, as a ratio. I'm not confident what the result would be, but it would be interesting to see someone actually do the math.
Unless you are considering the Civil War, the US gov't has not killed millions. Besides, the GP was comparing Gitmo to China. For starters, there are no US Citizens at Gitmo. Next, those at Gitmo are accused of terrorism. Those in China have not been accused of anything except living in China.
Please do let us know once you have that completed.
Again, the GP was comparing Gitmo to China. Please explain to me how the population of Gitmo is greater than the population of China. Also, see my paragraph above where I explain how those are Gitmo are accused of being terrorist vs the "crimes" the population of China has committed.
Seriously? Do honestly believe that those in the US are as oppressed as those in China? Before you answer, consider I am in the US, reading and replying on an open forum accusing the US government of doing something bad. I think that alone should prove my point.