"If we had it my way anyone making more then they truly need was be forced to give the money away to people who need it."
Do you truly need a computer? If you truly believe what you wrote, sell it, give the money to the poor, and either go to the library and log on to/. there, or perhaps save the time and expense and serve the poor.
If you truly believe what you wrote. If you're anything like the rest of the 98%, you're 98% bullshit.
Signed up for guaranteed lifetime rate. Received notice that program was being terminated, and could sign up for limited contrct at different rate. Left for another gym.
Signed up for lifetime guaranteed rate. Gym sold to another company with new signs put up overnight, new company would not honor membership. I have both left for another gym and negotiated a reasonable rate.
Signed up for limited contract at guaranteed rate. Gym closed, re-opened under new ownership, new ownership would not honor membership. Mostly left for another gym.
Signed up for a lifetime guranteed rate, informed my contract was cancelled when the card used for payment expired and gym did not notify me my payments were not being made. Required to pay past due balance with penalties, resign for new higher rate. Ignored new rate, paid past due and refused penalties, left for another gym.
Most recently, signed up for lifetime guaranteed rate, suspended membership, notified that it was cancelled for non use. Required to resign with initiaition fee, higher rate, different terms. Refused, kept original contract and pointed to the paragraph where it was lifetime, no disclaimer for non use. Contract reinstated with dirty looks from the manager for a year until he got an offer he could not refuse.
I doubt you'll get satisfaction, but they have several ways to legally avoid this. I would try to negotiate something like a minimal yearly fee, and when they offer a contract, ask them how this one is any more binding than the last one... And it is highly likely that they are doing this because they are losing money on those lifetime deals. The worst-case resolution is for them to go out of business, and leave you with not even your old data.
Ditto. While Bitcoin was attractive for those who wanted to mint their own, electronic voting is most attractive because it lets you mint votes.
That, by the way, is why electronic voting is not ready for use. Period. Where it works currently is where it has not been cracked, and all the options;'m aware of in the U.S. are crackable by high-schoolers working IBM's global help desks.
Rap did not invent the custom of referencing currency by the portrait of the President on it. It may hav popularized it among some segments of the culture, but it's neither new nor particularly inventive.
And having spend some time on ponds frequented by loons (the bird kind), beeing called a Loon is not the worst thing to happen to you.
I have been a Christian for only 10 years, and have read through the Bible 11 times, with other readings when I studied certain parts of it more carefully. I'm not a scholar, but I think I am knowledgable enough to answer your questions.
First, the Pentateuch describes Creation, the founding of God's chosen people, His covenant with them, and the Law He gave them. That Law was and is binding on those who call themselves Jews, Hebrews,and those who choose to live with them as one. Yes,that means that Israel is currently without a functioning temple, and is distanced from God.
Jesus came with a new covenant, one that required belief in Him, God's Son, the perfect sacrifice. This means that temple sacrifice is no longer necessary, being inadequate always (which is why it was repeated daily or more often), and which is I celebrate Communion not believing in transubstantiation, but rather as a declaration of faith. I am 'mostly' Reformed.
It is common to claim that the Mosaic convenant still binds Christians, when it does not. Jesus came to 'fulfill' the Law, meaning He was both the embodiment of perfect obedience to the Law, and the necessary atonement for sin.
The punishments under the Law, being part of the Law, were binding upon those under the Law. The new convenant, in Christ's blood, is different. The apostles taught that we were to treat those believers who behaved or treated us 'wongly' ( a broad and vauge term, but sufficient for now) either confess that sin and repent, or be treated as unbelivers (Matthew 18:15-17). Punishment for transgressions against God were punishable not by us, but by His judgment (Acts 5:1-11).
It is not for Christians to stone infidels, but rather to preach the Word of God to them, lest they turn and be healed. To 'force' Christianity upon others is foolish for several reasons - First, the Great Commisson teached Christians to preach, not convert. Second, since faith in Christ is a matter of the heart, any physical compulsion is both deceitful and futile - I can, by force, make you act a certain way, but I can never make you believe if you do not. Christ asks to rule our hearts. This must be given freely.
For me, being 'mostly Reformed', I rely on commentary from the past 400-500 years, since Luther's time, which are more than sufficient to adequately explain God's meaning through Scripture. Sola Scriptura is my trust in the Bible. And I have to practice discernment in understanding that.
'don't make a lot of sense' seems like a subjective statement to me. Then again, much that passed for objectivity in psychiatry was shown to be anything but, over time.
First, that old ice age warning was shorter-lived than the current warming debate, but was for the time a moderately intense debate. And it did not go so quietly aa many claim.
Second, the cause of a cooling climate, back then, hardly mattered.
As for the conspiracy theories, well, that's your focus.
Just go away. Accusing those who questioned AGW of being 'sociopaths' is the tactic of socialists, anarchists, and those who just hate. You are a useful idiot. No different than the other extreme you mistakenly think i was part of.
Go protest something, and continue to derive meaning from it.
I've been watching climate change debates most of my life.
First, it was the threat of nucler wear, and the nuclear winter to follow. This was well explained, and there wa polenty of data to back it up, and anotehr good reason to abandon nuclear weapons. In the midst of the destruction and poisoning, we would be huddled around burning straw, freezing to death. Women and children would be affected the most.
Then, it was the new Ice Age, inevitable due to climate cycles that were very well explained and with plenty of data. This was a good reason to either acllerate the adoption of advanced technologies, or to eschew them in favor of a sustainable lifestyle in the coming freeze. Oh, and to get as much oil as possible, just in case. And of course it would cause calamity and chaos, we would need to share resources, and we might get by, but don't count on it. Oh, and women and children woudl be affected the most.
Next, it's Global Warming, with now massive evidence of the causes and impacts, much more data, and warnings that we need to do everything to both prevent and adapt to it. We need to abandon our technology, improve it, change fuel sources, use fuels that don't cause other harms, and do it all now. NOW. Oh, and women and children will be affected the most, and the soonest.
Well, if AGW is real, which it seems to be, then I'm ready to both prevent it and mitigate the consequences of what is going to happen no matter what we do.
Just one thing.
So far, most of the solutions to AGW rely on taking from me pretty much eveyrthing that makes my life, as a middle-class U.S. citizen, special. I can deal with that, but so far ther eis little real discussion of the problems of the rest of world hell-bent on achieving the same special life as I have. I don't begrudge them that. But I'm concerned that they are going to tip the climate over the edge sooner than I could have, and will not readily listen to complaints that they are ruining things for all of us.
I expect to give up a lot - I will have to change my diet, my transportation, pay way more taxes, do with less or most everything, and in the end all it will get me is a feeling of contribution. I will not live long enough to see the results. No, I am not that young.
And I will get the nagging feeling that deep inside this, the truth is, that most of the AGW movement is very, very happy that I am paying for my profiligate lifestyle. Because I neither deserve it, nor shoudl it be even permitted. That bunch has been at it since the Nuclear Winter debate, in one fashion or another.
Because that is the way it's going. The so-called 98% are taking it in the shorts, while the top 1% cling to their place at the top. And the bottom 1% scheme to take all of that and more from the top 1% first, and then from whoever they designate as their next targets. And when the top 1% is ruined, then it's the next 1% and the next.
Soon enough, it will be me.
All so a very few can have their way, and rule us all. They hope.
Then again, this may not work out that way. If sensible people prevail.
Slashdot Mirror
From the DOL
Unemployment rates:
September 2008, 6.1%
January 2009, 7.8%
October 2009, 10.0%
July 2012, 8.3%
Any questions? No, I didn't think so. Go occupy something.
"If we had it my way anyone making more then they truly need was be forced to give the money away to people who need it."
Do you truly need a computer? If you truly believe what you wrote, sell it, give the money to the poor, and either go to the library and log on to /. there, or perhaps save the time and expense and serve the poor.
If you truly believe what you wrote. If you're anything like the rest of the 98%, you're 98% bullshit.
I learned.
I learned that gym memberships are not guaranteed.
I learned that which gym I use is not so important.
I learned that sometimes you can negotiate.
I learned that sometimes you have to be difficult to get your way.
I already know that ACs are sometimes self-important dicks.
I've had these experiences with gyum memberships:
Signed up for guaranteed lifetime rate. Received notice that program was being terminated, and could sign up for limited contrct at different rate. Left for another gym.
Signed up for lifetime guaranteed rate. Gym sold to another company with new signs put up overnight, new company would not honor membership. I have both left for another gym and negotiated a reasonable rate.
Signed up for limited contract at guaranteed rate. Gym closed, re-opened under new ownership, new ownership would not honor membership. Mostly left for another gym.
Signed up for a lifetime guranteed rate, informed my contract was cancelled when the card used for payment expired and gym did not notify me my payments were not being made. Required to pay past due balance with penalties, resign for new higher rate. Ignored new rate, paid past due and refused penalties, left for another gym.
Most recently, signed up for lifetime guaranteed rate, suspended membership, notified that it was cancelled for non use. Required to resign with initiaition fee, higher rate, different terms. Refused, kept original contract and pointed to the paragraph where it was lifetime, no disclaimer for non use. Contract reinstated with dirty looks from the manager for a year until he got an offer he could not refuse.
I doubt you'll get satisfaction, but they have several ways to legally avoid this. I would try to negotiate something like a minimal yearly fee, and when they offer a contract, ask them how this one is any more binding than the last one... And it is highly likely that they are doing this because they are losing money on those lifetime deals. The worst-case resolution is for them to go out of business, and leave you with not even your old data.
Sucks to be a realist.
Ditto. While Bitcoin was attractive for those who wanted to mint their own, electronic voting is most attractive because it lets you mint votes.
That, by the way, is why electronic voting is not ready for use. Period. Where it works currently is where it has not been cracked, and all the options ;'m aware of in the U.S. are crackable by high-schoolers working IBM's global help desks.
Rap did not invent the custom of referencing currency by the portrait of the President on it. It may hav popularized it among some segments of the culture, but it's neither new nor particularly inventive.
And having spend some time on ponds frequented by loons (the bird kind), beeing called a Loon is not the worst thing to happen to you.
I have been a Christian for only 10 years, and have read through the Bible 11 times, with other readings when I studied certain parts of it more carefully. I'm not a scholar, but I think I am knowledgable enough to answer your questions.
First, the Pentateuch describes Creation, the founding of God's chosen people, His covenant with them, and the Law He gave them. That Law was and is binding on those who call themselves Jews, Hebrews,and those who choose to live with them as one. Yes,that means that Israel is currently without a functioning temple, and is distanced from God.
Jesus came with a new covenant, one that required belief in Him, God's Son, the perfect sacrifice. This means that temple sacrifice is no longer necessary, being inadequate always (which is why it was repeated daily or more often), and which is I celebrate Communion not believing in transubstantiation, but rather as a declaration of faith. I am 'mostly' Reformed.
It is common to claim that the Mosaic convenant still binds Christians, when it does not. Jesus came to 'fulfill' the Law, meaning He was both the embodiment of perfect obedience to the Law, and the necessary atonement for sin.
The punishments under the Law, being part of the Law, were binding upon those under the Law. The new convenant, in Christ's blood, is different. The apostles taught that we were to treat those believers who behaved or treated us 'wongly' ( a broad and vauge term, but sufficient for now) either confess that sin and repent, or be treated as unbelivers (Matthew 18:15-17). Punishment for transgressions against God were punishable not by us, but by His judgment (Acts 5:1-11).
It is not for Christians to stone infidels, but rather to preach the Word of God to them, lest they turn and be healed. To 'force' Christianity upon others is foolish for several reasons - First, the Great Commisson teached Christians to preach, not convert. Second, since faith in Christ is a matter of the heart, any physical compulsion is both deceitful and futile - I can, by force, make you act a certain way, but I can never make you believe if you do not. Christ asks to rule our hearts. This must be given freely.
For me, being 'mostly Reformed', I rely on commentary from the past 400-500 years, since Luther's time, which are more than sufficient to adequately explain God's meaning through Scripture. Sola Scriptura is my trust in the Bible. And I have to practice discernment in understanding that.
You should take advangtage of those commentaries.
Before I had a religion, I would not have cared much at all about you or your soul, unless I was forced to by circumstances.
Of course it would be unacceptable for a religious leader to say something like that today, wouldn't it?"
They do, you know.
Do you suppose they also object to .koran, .quran , or whatever else might represent their scriptures?
Probably. This is about control, of course, and that's the game in most of the Middle East . Well, probably everywhere else too. Darn.
My religion compels me to pray for you, and to let you be. Others, not so much.
"I am not responsible for the financial crisis."
No, but the people who work for you were. And you're supposed to be in charge.
'don't make a lot of sense' seems like a subjective statement to me. Then again, much that passed for objectivity in psychiatry was shown to be anything but, over time.
'bizzare' is commonly used in clinical assessments.
I am John Galt.
Since this is the era of the politics of personal destruction, anything is fair game.
Of course, it's dysfunctional, but we aren't going to change this soon. Our political process is too polarized now.
And of course, issues really don't matter to the side that sees them as a liability.
Here is the problem....
First, that old ice age warning was shorter-lived than the current warming debate, but was for the time a moderately intense debate. And it did not go so quietly aa many claim.
Second, the cause of a cooling climate, back then, hardly mattered.
As for the conspiracy theories, well, that's your focus.
"Deniers are not only sociopaths,"
Just go away. Accusing those who questioned AGW of being 'sociopaths' is the tactic of socialists, anarchists, and those who just hate. You are a useful idiot. No different than the other extreme you mistakenly think i was part of.
Go protest something, and continue to derive meaning from it.
Most of what i give up will be replaced by more costly things. What I don't give up will be taxed , cost more to make, deliver, and dispose of.
Um , I was born and raised on land that bore the scars of glaciers. Easily taught in high school science, and before. I'm not ignorant, my friend.
We cannot MAKE China or India do anything.
Exactly. But we cannot stop them . And we will be blamed.
Nuclear power in the US is not yet in favor. Expanding nuclear is not yet an accepted solution.
Electric vehicles have a massive carbon footprint. we are being crazy with electric vehicles, and real solutions are 10 years away.
We do have to change our lifestyles.
The glass is always full...
I've been watching climate change debates most of my life.
First, it was the threat of nucler wear, and the nuclear winter to follow. This was well explained, and there wa polenty of data to back it up, and anotehr good reason to abandon nuclear weapons. In the midst of the destruction and poisoning, we would be huddled around burning straw, freezing to death. Women and children would be affected the most.
Then, it was the new Ice Age, inevitable due to climate cycles that were very well explained and with plenty of data. This was a good reason to either acllerate the adoption of advanced technologies, or to eschew them in favor of a sustainable lifestyle in the coming freeze. Oh, and to get as much oil as possible, just in case. And of course it would cause calamity and chaos, we would need to share resources, and we might get by, but don't count on it. Oh, and women and children woudl be affected the most.
Next, it's Global Warming, with now massive evidence of the causes and impacts, much more data, and warnings that we need to do everything to both prevent and adapt to it. We need to abandon our technology, improve it, change fuel sources, use fuels that don't cause other harms, and do it all now. NOW. Oh, and women and children will be affected the most, and the soonest.
Well, if AGW is real, which it seems to be, then I'm ready to both prevent it and mitigate the consequences of what is going to happen no matter what we do.
Just one thing.
So far, most of the solutions to AGW rely on taking from me pretty much eveyrthing that makes my life, as a middle-class U.S. citizen, special. I can deal with that, but so far ther eis little real discussion of the problems of the rest of world hell-bent on achieving the same special life as I have. I don't begrudge them that. But I'm concerned that they are going to tip the climate over the edge sooner than I could have, and will not readily listen to complaints that they are ruining things for all of us.
I expect to give up a lot - I will have to change my diet, my transportation, pay way more taxes, do with less or most everything, and in the end all it will get me is a feeling of contribution. I will not live long enough to see the results. No, I am not that young.
And I will get the nagging feeling that deep inside this, the truth is, that most of the AGW movement is very, very happy that I am paying for my profiligate lifestyle. Because I neither deserve it, nor shoudl it be even permitted. That bunch has been at it since the Nuclear Winter debate, in one fashion or another.
Because that is the way it's going. The so-called 98% are taking it in the shorts, while the top 1% cling to their place at the top. And the bottom 1% scheme to take all of that and more from the top 1% first, and then from whoever they designate as their next targets. And when the top 1% is ruined, then it's the next 1% and the next.
Soon enough, it will be me.
All so a very few can have their way, and rule us all. They hope.
Then again, this may not work out that way. If sensible people prevail.
That's not his face. Common mistake.
And he's not a he. Less common mistake.