Can someone please tell me what's supposed to be so politically edgy about creating yet another disordered, unregulated system?
That kind of jumbling and lack of accountability is pretty much the problem with our political system, and yet Anonymous sells it as subversive and avant-garde. It's not.
Then when you ask Anonymous what it thinks it's trying to accomplish, rather than sending you a sheaf of redacted government memos they just tell you, "There is no such thing as Anonymous." If life were a party, Anonymous would be the geeky attention-seeking teen off in the corner snorting handfuls of GHB.
It'd be nice if groups "there's no such thing as" didn't make headlines so often. I can't take them seriously.
If you use Anonpaste then the governments will claim you're a credit card thief, a child pornography, or a terrorist, because why else would you want to use something like Anonpaste?
Politicians are a lot less quick to use that, "Only criminals demand their right to privacy" routine after a few demands for public strip-searches.
Interestingly, the political corruption in the U.S. is getting resolved by, of all people, the military.
Sending a letter stops working once you're talking about writing to your governor, a senator, the president, the secretary of state, etc., though. They have people open and read their mail for them, and it mostly just gets sorted into the appropriate tally marks (we received n++ letters against the Foo Bill, next).
It sounds like what these guys need is a simple website capability, easily feasible in something like Drupal, that would enable users to click for or against an issue. In addition to cutting down on spam, it would enable constituents to immediately see how much activity there has been on an issue. You could even do a Facebook-style "Like", or enable constituents to Tweet their feedback. And if there's no API, it makes it more difficult to mass-spam the feature.
Seems to me they get a lot of spam because e-mail is about the only internet-based feedback system they have in place.
Note that this will not address the issue of money-guzzling politicians who are too corrupt to be motivated by feedback.
I love this trend. Free online courses make perfect sense with the internet's information distribution model, and if the coursework can be properly accredited there's no reason to have to pay absurd sums to proprietary universities. Plenty of people have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to get an education that was supposed to ensure they'd have a well-paying job, never mind that they'd had to mortgage the rest of their working lives to pay off the student loans. Now, they find they can't get work anyway.
In addition to online courses, I think gameification would be such a great match with online learning. There are plenty of unemployed game designers and teachers; there's no reason they shouldn't pair up. Learning shouldn't be a chore; if we stop accepting the low standard that it's acceptable for it to be, we'll have a society where learning happens painlessly.
There's also no reason online learning games couldn't lead directly to great jobs or cash incentives. Remember Rock Band and Guitar Hero? I kept waiting for a version that would gradually teach you to play an actual guitar. Pitch sensors would pick up the notes, and as your skill increased your online ranking would as well. The highest-ranking players could get a recording contract.
It's not like the world is suffering a shortage of guitar players, but it's good proof-of-concept. There has to be a way to implement the various sciences and technologies into games; I spent hours playing CellCraft without realizing I was picking up basic cellular biology.
If we can agree that the mainstream news media are no longer opting to practice legitimate journalism, and that many new online reporters do not know how, it doesn't follow that journalistic standards do not exist, or that they're impossible to implement or insist upon. I think it may argue the case in favor of them more strongly.
I've been noticing stories that are covered much like this a lot on Slashdot lately. It's difficult to know whether it's journalism - which reports the facts and allows the reader to reach their own conclusion about them - an editorial piece - which is where blatantly opinion-laden writing is usually found - or tabloid reporting - which purports to be legitimate but is usually written for sensationalism.
I realize that proper journalism went out when political pundits were brought in, but this weird crossbreed of online reporting is becoming a trend.
There's no reason why those administrative components couldn't be taken care of by delegates selected by the funding crowds. A similar model would be a website that outsources its advertising tasks to affiliate websites, or musicians who join up with an indie record label. They need to spend their time doing what they do best, while profit-seekers handle the business side. In addition to sharing the results of their research, there's no reason why the funding crowds can't or shouldn't also share in any profits from implementing the results of all that research. Crowds could even assist to bring medicines, tech designs, etc. to market by hooking the project up with interested manufacturers. With crowds getting a chunk of the residuals, there would be phenomenal incentive to invest in projects. And then you have a plethora of internet users profiting from doing some good in the world. Everybody succeeds.
>The main difference between theism and science (to generalize this somewhat) with respect to point a) is the nature of the "sense data." Theism's has a flaw—it is not inherently replicable, something the diversity of religions (and the existence of atheism) is a testament to. In contrast, science's is replicable; the results of all properly done studies are theoretically capable of being reproduced. I assume, of course, that we are discarding solipsistic and brain-in-a-vat-type viewpoints. It follows, then, that science is a "belief system" of a different sort—it is based on many individuals' "sense data."
There is some fascinating data out there that appears to invalidate that interpretation, but the data is not widely known in the U.S.. The Tibetan Buddhist monks are able to create tulpas, or thoughtforms made solid. They can create objects, animals, people, biologically improbable deities from their pantheon and, according to their texts, "the elixir of immortality". Through about three months of seclusion and intense visualization, these things take on solid form and become perceptible to those around them. People and animal tulpas begin showing up unbidden, and acting on their own cognizance. A few westerners such as Alexandra David-Neel have learned to form tulpas themselves.
I hesitate to state that these tulpas have become "real", but they are as real as anything else around us. This makes an interesting case for the whole world being one giant tulpa itself, kept manifested into apparent solidity by the day-to-day beliefs and choices (acts of Will) of the population.
Additionally, David Hawkins has adapted a technique of applied kinesiology to tap into non-localized consciousness. The mechanism is theorized to work in the following way: Consciousness is non-localized, with the body's nervous system acting as an interpreter and actualizer, in addition to passing along sensory data back to it. Through muscle-resistance tests, the nervous system is queried for "strong" and "weak" responses. Unhealthy stimuli typically cause a "weak" response. These include saccharin, an apple grown with pesticides, and alcohol-based perfume. Healthy stimuli produce a "strong" response: sugar, an organically-grown apple, a smile, and even a kind and loving thought. Test subjects can successfully distinguish between a conventionally-grown apple and an organically-grown apple, despite not knowing which is which.
Interestingly, false statements also produce a "weak" response - even if the accuracy of the statement is not known to the subjects. Verifiably true or false statements were written on various 3x5 cards, sealed individually into envelopes, shuffled, and passed around a lecture room. A roomful of people would get the same responses, despite not even knowing which statement was in which envelope. This applied kinesiological technique has since been used to distinguish between original works of art and art forgeries, legitimate business offers and scam attempts, and even used to pare down potentially suitable fabrication materials by dividing the possible materials into two groups, checking for a "strong" response, and then repeating the process to pare down the possibilities. The R&D potential of this is amazing. The technique has since been used to narrow down the possible location of a number of items "20 Questions"-style, to check on the level of integrity within various ranks of the CIA remotely, and to research matters that had previously lacked scientifically-objective data; the levels of consciousness have apparently been calibrated, with higher levels possessing a stronger influence on the world around us than lower levels by orders of magnitude. I recommend Hawkins' book, Power vs. Force, which goes into better detail on this.
Taken in combination, these things present quite a non-st
Most of us older folks remember the sodomy laws(any homosexual sex, at points in the past, even oral sex amongst married heterosexual couples) that were until relatively historicly recently, on the books and enforced in texas, kansas(my home state), etc. All due to the worst sort of impulses in people to control minorities and those different from them, due to their selective interpretation of one particular translation, of a particular collection of books, that despite those qualifiers, present a groundwork for anyone on the planet beginning to understand the 'mainstream'(or rather, one healthy and unarguably significant fraction of it) human cultural history of the last couple thousand years.
Thank you for that, jdogalt.
Every time I hear a Christian acknowledge that point, somewhere an angel gets its wings. And my estimation of humanity - and in Christians, specifically - goes up a notch.
what I have come to realize is that their "madness" is stronger than our rationality.... Compared to their peers, they are more likely to form relationships and to marry.... Their strong bonds allow them to coordinate effectively and gather/distribute resources.... They network very effectively.
Worker ants have been very successful for similar reasons. Would you want to be one, though?
No, I'm not assaulting Christians there. But adopting the lifestyle of a group to which you consider yourself a non-member does seem a little insincere and amoral if you're doing it for material benefits. At that point, it becomes only a matter of how low you're willing to go. I understand there are some very satisfied people out there who's lifestyle is based on performing oral sex acts in exchange for freebase cocaine. What I'm suggesting is that if the method you've described is really how you see yourself, go ahead and do so - but know that it is, and know why it is, too. If you do something that isn't who you really are, the results are only going to be disappointing for you - it's a sort of hidden cost involved in the choice. And if it is who you really are, understanding why it is - and to what extent - can enable you to maximize the choice and increase your degree of satisfaction. There's no sense in stopping at mere free food for instance, when there are plenty of motivated drug dealers near you with whom you could form mutually-satisfying relationships.
IT says the people have a natural predisposition toward accepting the unknown and putting it into a little box, and confusing Correlation with causality.
But you can develop beliefs to ward against it
FTFY.
It amazes me when very rational people exempt a belief system from the category "a belief system" so long as it carries two criteria:
a) It's based on interpretations of "empirical" sense data (and the interpretations, as well as which data to use, are based on their present context), and
b) It's a non-trivially complex system, and more or less adheres to an internally-consistent set of principles and rules.
Christianity? A belief system. Psychology? An empirical, scientifically-established model. See how that works?
Note that many clinically insane patients adhere to belief systems that meet the above criteria. It makes total sense to them, but since their beliefs are not aligned with the beliefs of the majority, society is quick to dismiss them. The argument is often made that the patients' beliefs are fundamentally unhealthy, but the same is usually as true with prevalent societally-held beliefs as well. The result is that we assign the labels "sane" and "insane" on more or less a democratic societal basis. This practice hardly seems particularly healthy either, but it may be the best we've come up with thus far.
The Freedom of Information Act is required to release information on public request. Doesn't mean they can't redact it.
And "by law" should read "by legislation". Huge difference, the lack of comprehension about which enables them to call any old thing law. "Legislation" and "legal" come from the root word legis, and are bureaucratic terms - not law. They concern the legitimacy of the paperwork process involved: Everything dated correctly? Signed by the right parties? Turned in on time? Great! It's legislation.
But to also be a law, that article of legislation must have proper authority behind it. It can't just be any old thing that drips out of a politicians' pen. In the U.S., our "political representatives" get a very specific and limited set of authorities delegated to them from the People. What hasn't been delegated to the federal government remains with the People - or, if they've so delegated it, to the various States respectively.
In other words, what we didn't give them, they don't have. Consider: A politician signs a piece of paper that purports to give him (or other politicians) authorities he didn't already have. This is self-evidently absurd. Typically, if I want to give something I must first have it to give. I suppose I could steal it from someone else, but then I'd just be a thief. In politics, it's called usurpation. When politicians write bogus paperwork purporting to give themselves that which truly belongs to the People, they usurp their own constituency and self-evidently become enemies of the state they purport to be serving. It's just that neither the politicians nor the news media use that term in reference to themselves, for some reason.
...And that very long Comment was voted up. Why are things like this not submitted and accepted on Slashdot as news stories or at least discussion topics?
Being a geek doesn't preclude me from wanting to have a meaningful, well-cited Slashdot-esque political debate. Indeed, Slashdot may be one of the few places it's possible to have that.
Santorum's campaigning, then dropping out, makes sense in terms of "oops, did I just drive votes towards one of the other major candidates?". Those who've been following what Benjamin Fulford has been putting out read this back in mid-January:
The owners of the Washington D.C. Corporation have already decided on Mitt Romney as the new President of the United States. They have been rigging opinion polls and primary results to make sure their decision is enforced. The corporate media propaganda machine is also in on the decision.
So this maneuvering is not entirely bewildering, for some.
That is such semantic nonsense. Heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they romantically love. Homosexuals do not have that right in most of the United States.
Great point. Technically unsound though.
A marriage is between people, with God as the authority. A priest should. be competent to represent Him. If he won't, that doesn't illegitimatize the whole thing.
But in the U.S. the gay marriage laws concern government and civil law. That's because the argument's not about being joined in the eyes of God or not; it's about tax benefits conferred by the federal government. As usual, they're using a hotbutton issue to get the public seething, while the real legal issue of the day is politicians overreaching to legally establish a new precedant that they can decide who gets federal benefits based on race, orientation, gender, or any other such fool thing.
Meanwhile, they've convinced you that they've already become the arbiter of who can get married and who can't. News flash: They aren't. Go and get married. Have a public ceremony. Get on with your lives. And, optionally, sue the glorious fsck out of the government for discrimination when you don't get those tax breaks. Honestly, if every gay couple hit them in the pocketbook where they'll actually feel it, we could let them take as long as they liked to get around to fixing that legislation. "No rush, we'll just keep suing you..." How long do you think that would take?
Slashdot Mirror
Can someone please tell me what's supposed to be so politically edgy about creating yet another disordered, unregulated system?
That kind of jumbling and lack of accountability is pretty much the problem with our political system, and yet Anonymous sells it as subversive and avant-garde. It's not.
Then when you ask Anonymous what it thinks it's trying to accomplish, rather than sending you a sheaf of redacted government memos they just tell you, "There is no such thing as Anonymous." If life were a party, Anonymous would be the geeky attention-seeking teen off in the corner snorting handfuls of GHB.
It'd be nice if groups "there's no such thing as" didn't make headlines so often. I can't take them seriously.
If you use Anonpaste then the governments will claim you're a credit card thief, a child pornography, or a terrorist, because why else would you want to use something like Anonpaste?
Politicians are a lot less quick to use that, "Only criminals demand their right to privacy" routine after a few demands for public strip-searches.
Interestingly, the political corruption in the U.S. is getting resolved by, of all people, the military.
Eating Meat Helped Early Humans Reproduce
Slashdot, your innuendos are getting worse.
That makes sense. A good workaround might be a Javascript CAPTCHA-like element; I'm not sure how advanced the anti-CAPTCHA technology has gotten yet.
If the male representative you're telegramming is an older "fundamentalist" conservative, you might get better results with a Chippendale.
Sending a letter stops working once you're talking about writing to your governor, a senator, the president, the secretary of state, etc., though. They have people open and read their mail for them, and it mostly just gets sorted into the appropriate tally marks (we received n++ letters against the Foo Bill, next).
It sounds like what these guys need is a simple website capability, easily feasible in something like Drupal, that would enable users to click for or against an issue. In addition to cutting down on spam, it would enable constituents to immediately see how much activity there has been on an issue. You could even do a Facebook-style "Like", or enable constituents to Tweet their feedback. And if there's no API, it makes it more difficult to mass-spam the feature.
Seems to me they get a lot of spam because e-mail is about the only internet-based feedback system they have in place.
Note that this will not address the issue of money-guzzling politicians who are too corrupt to be motivated by feedback.
These two devices solve literally every problem you are trying to solve.
Then by that reasoning, chiseled stone tablets ought to carry a lot more weight!
Right. On. Thank you for the info!
Here's to the day when instead of mandatory school hours, we stay at home and play things like Gene Splicer Hero.
I love this trend. Free online courses make perfect sense with the internet's information distribution model, and if the coursework can be properly accredited there's no reason to have to pay absurd sums to proprietary universities. Plenty of people have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to get an education that was supposed to ensure they'd have a well-paying job, never mind that they'd had to mortgage the rest of their working lives to pay off the student loans. Now, they find they can't get work anyway.
In addition to online courses, I think gameification would be such a great match with online learning. There are plenty of unemployed game designers and teachers; there's no reason they shouldn't pair up. Learning shouldn't be a chore; if we stop accepting the low standard that it's acceptable for it to be, we'll have a society where learning happens painlessly.
There's also no reason online learning games couldn't lead directly to great jobs or cash incentives. Remember Rock Band and Guitar Hero? I kept waiting for a version that would gradually teach you to play an actual guitar. Pitch sensors would pick up the notes, and as your skill increased your online ranking would as well. The highest-ranking players could get a recording contract.
It's not like the world is suffering a shortage of guitar players, but it's good proof-of-concept. There has to be a way to implement the various sciences and technologies into games; I spent hours playing CellCraft without realizing I was picking up basic cellular biology.
Basically, I think the writeups are faulty and I'm calling attention to that.
I should have clarified that I was referring to gurps_npc's writeup of the piece, and particularly the conclusion.
I agree with you.
I'd been referring to gurps_npc's writeup of the piece, and particularly his or her conclusion.
This works.
If we can agree that the mainstream news media are no longer opting to practice legitimate journalism, and that many new online reporters do not know how, it doesn't follow that journalistic standards do not exist, or that they're impossible to implement or insist upon. I think it may argue the case in favor of them more strongly.
I've been noticing stories that are covered much like this a lot on Slashdot lately. It's difficult to know whether it's journalism - which reports the facts and allows the reader to reach their own conclusion about them - an editorial piece - which is where blatantly opinion-laden writing is usually found - or tabloid reporting - which purports to be legitimate but is usually written for sensationalism.
I realize that proper journalism went out when political pundits were brought in, but this weird crossbreed of online reporting is becoming a trend.
There's no reason why those administrative components couldn't be taken care of by delegates selected by the funding crowds. A similar model would be a website that outsources its advertising tasks to affiliate websites, or musicians who join up with an indie record label. They need to spend their time doing what they do best, while profit-seekers handle the business side. In addition to sharing the results of their research, there's no reason why the funding crowds can't or shouldn't also share in any profits from implementing the results of all that research. Crowds could even assist to bring medicines, tech designs, etc. to market by hooking the project up with interested manufacturers. With crowds getting a chunk of the residuals, there would be phenomenal incentive to invest in projects. And then you have a plethora of internet users profiting from doing some good in the world. Everybody succeeds.
>The main difference between theism and science (to generalize this somewhat) with respect to point a) is the nature of the "sense data." Theism's has a flaw—it is not inherently replicable, something the diversity of religions (and the existence of atheism) is a testament to. In contrast, science's is replicable; the results of all properly done studies are theoretically capable of being reproduced. I assume, of course, that we are discarding solipsistic and brain-in-a-vat-type viewpoints. It follows, then, that science is a "belief system" of a different sort—it is based on many individuals' "sense data."
There is some fascinating data out there that appears to invalidate that interpretation, but the data is not widely known in the U.S.. The Tibetan Buddhist monks are able to create tulpas, or thoughtforms made solid. They can create objects, animals, people, biologically improbable deities from their pantheon and, according to their texts, "the elixir of immortality". Through about three months of seclusion and intense visualization, these things take on solid form and become perceptible to those around them. People and animal tulpas begin showing up unbidden, and acting on their own cognizance. A few westerners such as Alexandra David-Neel have learned to form tulpas themselves.
I hesitate to state that these tulpas have become "real", but they are as real as anything else around us. This makes an interesting case for the whole world being one giant tulpa itself, kept manifested into apparent solidity by the day-to-day beliefs and choices (acts of Will) of the population.
Additionally, David Hawkins has adapted a technique of applied kinesiology to tap into non-localized consciousness. The mechanism is theorized to work in the following way: Consciousness is non-localized, with the body's nervous system acting as an interpreter and actualizer, in addition to passing along sensory data back to it. Through muscle-resistance tests, the nervous system is queried for "strong" and "weak" responses. Unhealthy stimuli typically cause a "weak" response. These include saccharin, an apple grown with pesticides, and alcohol-based perfume. Healthy stimuli produce a "strong" response: sugar, an organically-grown apple, a smile, and even a kind and loving thought. Test subjects can successfully distinguish between a conventionally-grown apple and an organically-grown apple, despite not knowing which is which.
Interestingly, false statements also produce a "weak" response - even if the accuracy of the statement is not known to the subjects. Verifiably true or false statements were written on various 3x5 cards, sealed individually into envelopes, shuffled, and passed around a lecture room. A roomful of people would get the same responses, despite not even knowing which statement was in which envelope. This applied kinesiological technique has since been used to distinguish between original works of art and art forgeries, legitimate business offers and scam attempts, and even used to pare down potentially suitable fabrication materials by dividing the possible materials into two groups, checking for a "strong" response, and then repeating the process to pare down the possibilities. The R&D potential of this is amazing. The technique has since been used to narrow down the possible location of a number of items "20 Questions"-style, to check on the level of integrity within various ranks of the CIA remotely, and to research matters that had previously lacked scientifically-objective data; the levels of consciousness have apparently been calibrated, with higher levels possessing a stronger influence on the world around us than lower levels by orders of magnitude. I recommend Hawkins' book, Power vs. Force, which goes into better detail on this.
Taken in combination, these things present quite a non-st
Most of us older folks remember the sodomy laws(any homosexual sex, at points in the past, even oral sex amongst married heterosexual couples) that were until relatively historicly recently, on the books and enforced in texas, kansas(my home state), etc. All due to the worst sort of impulses in people to control minorities and those different from them, due to their selective interpretation of one particular translation, of a particular collection of books, that despite those qualifiers, present a groundwork for anyone on the planet beginning to understand the 'mainstream'(or rather, one healthy and unarguably significant fraction of it) human cultural history of the last couple thousand years.
Thank you for that, jdogalt.
Every time I hear a Christian acknowledge that point, somewhere an angel gets its wings. And my estimation of humanity - and in Christians, specifically - goes up a notch.
what I have come to realize is that their "madness" is stronger than our rationality. ... Compared to their peers, they are more likely to form relationships and to marry. ... Their strong bonds allow them to coordinate effectively and gather/distribute resources. ... They network very effectively.
Worker ants have been very successful for similar reasons. Would you want to be one, though?
No, I'm not assaulting Christians there. But adopting the lifestyle of a group to which you consider yourself a non-member does seem a little insincere and amoral if you're doing it for material benefits. At that point, it becomes only a matter of how low you're willing to go. I understand there are some very satisfied people out there who's lifestyle is based on performing oral sex acts in exchange for freebase cocaine. What I'm suggesting is that if the method you've described is really how you see yourself, go ahead and do so - but know that it is, and know why it is, too. If you do something that isn't who you really are, the results are only going to be disappointing for you - it's a sort of hidden cost involved in the choice. And if it is who you really are, understanding why it is - and to what extent - can enable you to maximize the choice and increase your degree of satisfaction. There's no sense in stopping at mere free food for instance, when there are plenty of motivated drug dealers near you with whom you could form mutually-satisfying relationships.
IT says the people have a natural predisposition toward accepting the unknown and putting it into a little box, and confusing Correlation with causality.
But you can develop beliefs to ward against it
FTFY.
It amazes me when very rational people exempt a belief system from the category "a belief system" so long as it carries two criteria:
a) It's based on interpretations of "empirical" sense data (and the interpretations, as well as which data to use, are based on their present context), and
b) It's a non-trivially complex system, and more or less adheres to an internally-consistent set of principles and rules.
Christianity? A belief system. Psychology? An empirical, scientifically-established model. See how that works?
Note that many clinically insane patients adhere to belief systems that meet the above criteria. It makes total sense to them, but since their beliefs are not aligned with the beliefs of the majority, society is quick to dismiss them. The argument is often made that the patients' beliefs are fundamentally unhealthy, but the same is usually as true with prevalent societally-held beliefs as well. The result is that we assign the labels "sane" and "insane" on more or less a democratic societal basis. This practice hardly seems particularly healthy either, but it may be the best we've come up with thus far.
The Freedom of Information Act is required to release information on public request. Doesn't mean they can't redact it.
And "by law" should read "by legislation". Huge difference, the lack of comprehension about which enables them to call any old thing law. "Legislation" and "legal" come from the root word legis, and are bureaucratic terms - not law. They concern the legitimacy of the paperwork process involved: Everything dated correctly? Signed by the right parties? Turned in on time? Great! It's legislation.
But to also be a law, that article of legislation must have proper authority behind it. It can't just be any old thing that drips out of a politicians' pen. In the U.S., our "political representatives" get a very specific and limited set of authorities delegated to them from the People. What hasn't been delegated to the federal government remains with the People - or, if they've so delegated it, to the various States respectively.
In other words, what we didn't give them, they don't have. Consider: A politician signs a piece of paper that purports to give him (or other politicians) authorities he didn't already have. This is self-evidently absurd. Typically, if I want to give something I must first have it to give. I suppose I could steal it from someone else, but then I'd just be a thief. In politics, it's called usurpation. When politicians write bogus paperwork purporting to give themselves that which truly belongs to the People, they usurp their own constituency and self-evidently become enemies of the state they purport to be serving. It's just that neither the politicians nor the news media use that term in reference to themselves, for some reason.
...And that very long Comment was voted up. Why are things like this not submitted and accepted on Slashdot as news stories or at least discussion topics?
Being a geek doesn't preclude me from wanting to have a meaningful, well-cited Slashdot-esque political debate. Indeed, Slashdot may be one of the few places it's possible to have that.
A free cement bag of Silly Putty? What couldn't you do with one of those?
It's similar to a city leaving Giant Slinkies all around town.
Santorum's campaigning, then dropping out, makes sense in terms of "oops, did I just drive votes towards one of the other major candidates?". Those who've been following what Benjamin Fulford has been putting out read this back in mid-January:
The owners of the Washington D.C. Corporation have already decided on Mitt Romney as the new President of the United States. They have been rigging opinion polls and primary results to make sure their decision is enforced. The corporate media propaganda machine is also in on the decision.
So this maneuvering is not entirely bewildering, for some.
What I really want is algorithm that allows me to have my cake and eat it too.
If someone can explain the encrypted algorithm with better words or examples then that would be great. Thanks!
The phrase is actually to eat your cake, and then still have it, too.
Anyone can have a cake and then eat it.
Anyone who lives in the U.S., at least.
And what resource isn't finite?
Human stupidity.
That's only a resource if you're a con artist.
That is such semantic nonsense. Heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they romantically love. Homosexuals do not have that right in most of the United States.
Great point. Technically unsound though.
A marriage is between people, with God as the authority. A priest should. be competent to represent Him. If he won't, that doesn't illegitimatize the whole thing.
But in the U.S. the gay marriage laws concern government and civil law. That's because the argument's not about being joined in the eyes of God or not; it's about tax benefits conferred by the federal government. As usual, they're using a hotbutton issue to get the public seething, while the real legal issue of the day is politicians overreaching to legally establish a new precedant that they can decide who gets federal benefits based on race, orientation, gender, or any other such fool thing.
Meanwhile, they've convinced you that they've already become the arbiter of who can get married and who can't. News flash: They aren't. Go and get married. Have a public ceremony. Get on with your lives. And, optionally, sue the glorious fsck out of the government for discrimination when you don't get those tax breaks. Honestly, if every gay couple hit them in the pocketbook where they'll actually feel it, we could let them take as long as they liked to get around to fixing that legislation. "No rush, we'll just keep suing you..." How long do you think that would take?