I've been all over the flyover states and have seen first hand what "free trade" has gotten us, its gotten us abandoned factories, boarded up buildings, and for many areas the only "jobs" are applying for government handouts and flipping burgers. To quote George Carlin "You know why they call it The American Dream? because you have to be asleep to believe in it"
Just want to point out that "free trade" isn't a bad idea, rather "free trade"with non-free countries where only those with pull, who participate in graft, who ensure large sums go to the gatekeepers...these are why this impoverishes people here: when the other country plays by a different set of rules and the result is a vampiricism enriching those here who help to enable it to get a (significant) chunk, and when those people there can never be permitted to be productive enough to counter-buy/participate (aka have economic means that might scare their governments), well...what do we expect?
It's called Human Resources, staffed as it is with people who look at certifications as though they must always be formal degrees: there's a reason even Forbes has called for literally firing every single human resources department in America (and possibly blacklisting those people), though they still haven't figured out that those auto-sorting-applicants computers/programs are about as bad.
Use slow, sloppy javascript (or javascript-like) and HTML to create big, serious-work desktop applications? Sincerely, fuck you.
Figures from a guy with "Religion is the greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time" as his signature. Frankly not surprising that someone who uses "religion" in the all-popularly vague manner and attributes it to all evil then goes on to be unappreciative:
Obviously there are a lot of potential (potential--repeat, potential) advantages and disadvantages to their approach. Of course, the work being done here means KDE is not so much simply a Desktop anymore rather than a giant set of resources designs precisely for accessibility: with each one being modularized, documented, and made ready to be called by any other app it means KDE is becoming more and more unix-like while also empowering less and less knowledgeable people without as much commitment of time to write and port and leverage applications and code.
I mean, though we all hate it, look at the explosion of apps and developments that took place when people realized they could use the COM object of IE and other Windows' parts in application, avoiding reimplementation and getting on to useful work: it does mean I'm still stuck--after years--with IE security/cert errors while using my work applications despite it pulling data over secured channels, yet my company's engineers did not have to rewrite a ton of functionality and then build a program to maintain the code.
KDE seems to be thinking far ahead: even if/when KDE the desktop becomes useless, its code should live-on: imagine Microsoft converting all its code into a set of plugins for its development frameworks: still assembled and offered as the Windows desktop and widely available as such a program, but useable for any other. I'm not even a programmer (I started in high school, got zapped for cancer, lost a lot of memory) and I think this rocks: it's open thinking, "hey use our stuff for whatever you need--we'll even make it really easy for you!" If only companies did this with their offerings. (Ask a giant like Oracle or Cisco some time about "hey we'd just like to use these functions rather than entire-system-sold"and see what happens.)
As for Javascript-like scripting...Javascript isn't sloppy: Javascript has a whole lot that Java and other serious languages lack. Javascript has advantages and disadvantages just as they do. And Javascript may or may not be written sloppily: with work like this, you can drop-in your own replacement if KDE provides a set of scripts that suck: one of the ideals for information in computing is the ability to transform the State of a system at will with a few lines of input or set of codes, and work like this only work to advance us nearer.
I'm assuming that the flippin' point is with crowdsourcing everything's laid on the table (or if not don't invest) and we should more and more stop asking gubmint to protect us (often some of the deepest pockets in the world). Those filing requirements, plans, etc...are all things that are business conventions anyways, why is the government involved in what would be demanded anyway? Oh yeah, some government-level bean counter needs to be able to crush small un-connected assemblies of people: this is unacceptable and my generation is about ready for revolt by holding these shittards to the fire for it.
it has no right to force its opinions about legal, private behavior on its employees, or to punish them for their purely private behavior.
What you are saying is, employees have a right to employment in someone else's organization and to disregard any kind of agreement made with conditions for said employment? Or that religions organizations have less right to discipline members for unacceptable moral conduct than corporations do for potentially embarrassing ethical breaches? You must have a brilliant mind in there.
I forgot to add that purely public and irreligious businesses can also impose morals clauses--which may even include restrictions on sexual behavior, even "deviancy" that includes quasi-protected choices of lifestyle and behavior like homosexuality--as these are considerations of image and what may affect valuation and confidence and purchasing decisions of and for the business. You're going to be pissed when you hear how the courts rule when employees challenge these...
I'll hint again: if you don't like it, don't agree to the terms and conditions for joining someone else's organization.
it has no right to force its opinions about legal, private behavior on its employees, or to punish them for their purely private behavior.
What you are saying is, employees have a right to employment in someone else's organization and to disregard any kind of agreement made with conditions for said employment? Or that religions organizations have less right to discipline members for unacceptable moral conduct than corporations do for potentially embarrassing ethical breaches?
You must have a brilliant mind in there.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that blood transfusions are immoral.
And they refuse them.
Christian Scientists believe that most modern medicine is immoral.
And as is their right, they refuse participation.
The Church of the Holy Buck believes that any treatment that negatively affects the bottom line is immoral.
Any treatment can undergo a price increase so I don't know what you're talking about.
Should all of those be allowed to refuse to pay for any of them?
Yes: that's what a truly free society where people are responsible for themselves--as opposed to our increasingly totalitarian nanny-state--does: leave people who do not engage in any direct harm alone. Of course, your ilk are attempting to redefine mere verbal disapproval as "harm".
If a religious organisation finds that it is immoral to perform a particular service, then they are welcome to get out of the business of providing that service.
In other words, you believe in the power of the State to dictate how any service shall be performed, and therefore what can and cannot be accessible, and not the right to offer a service you know to obtain a living? Bet you believe in the right to free bread but define "business" as a non-right. Hint: business is just human activity to exchange goods and [abilities] so as to obtain the means to live--and for some who are lucky to have a little extra maybe to go have some fun, whether wholesome or whether that includes hookers and blo.
No one is forcing churches to be in the insurance business and I can cite several passages from the bible, including quotes from Jesus and St. Paul that indicate that they shouldn't [your grammar is wrong here]
I'm sure you can cite the beatitudes to reimagine Jesus as an ethical-liberal hippie-guru like a lot of want-Him-for-his-name's-authority sophists too, but you'd be wrong and and idiot.
If they want to be religions, they can have any crazy rules that they want. If they want to be businesses
Great, "fuck them and let them die", I'm sure you'll try to write rules in accordance with "those who don't work, don't eat' (also in the bible) so they can have the right only to die if you don't like them.
Newflash you know-nothing bigotted my-way-or-no-rights-for-your statist totalitarian nutjob: people like me are getting so fed up with threats-----even to others' rights: I lost my evangsmellical religion by disassembling the mass of contradictory bullshit I was taught as a kid when I finally had time not only to read the bible, but learn the historical data and hermeneutical principles--and smattering of Hebrew and Greek to handle exegetical tools and original language dictionaries and even a Greek New Testament now and then: it was quite useful actually--I fed the scoffers on our university plaza the questions necessary to expose the professional preachers who came for being charlatans and know-nothings that they were. Sincere know-nothings, but doing God's work for them seemed to mean they needed only know a few simple things, though pretending to be sophisticated (not just to other's) was a perk I guess--anything to get prayers of acceptance of Jesus.
But quite seriously to our times, here in America
"No one is forcing [PEOPLE] in the insurance business [to provide services against their will or deny them the right to their trade or chosen profession, because since]" "they can have any crazy rules that they want" [but nobody can be forced to purchase from them rather than another business if they feel their offering is better], [and since we have well-functioning courts based on rule of law principles and a high regard for substance over formalities and procedural technicalities that aren't made-up for the courts' own convenience any failure to provide what was agreed will result in a sure victory for
It's long past time any [ideology] should expect the government to take any notice of its beliefs in a [baggage-laden and vague, almost-mythological, weaponized-and-undefined term defined only in the negative, never with meaningful substance, here] society. A [baggage-laden and vague, almost-mythological, weaponized-and-undefined term defined only in the negative, never with meaningful substance, here] society should ignore [ideology] because if you don't, how do you draw the line? Should I be allowed to stone my neighbor to death if he doesn't observe the [mandate to approve of and support activities of homosexuals just because they engage in a pornographic orgy the which I would never subject to myself otherwise except our [laden term here also] forces me to else shuts down my business and fines me, at their wedding]?
[Ideology] has no places in making the laws of a [[baggage-laden and vague, almost-mythological, weaponized-and-undefined term defined only in the negative, never with meaningful substance, here]] ["]nation["]
Your packaging of your regurgitation of the unchewed pre-packaged "intellectual position" is leaking. The only thing sensible, because it is grounded in an actual phenomenological situation is "[should I] Allow my child to die from an easily cured malady because I believe in faith healing?" You do realize the US is actually among the most "religious" "nations" in the world right? Or that "secularism" is a well-critiqued, weaponized-for-politics, usually senseless term right? That Westphalia was not actually a secular triumph but that "secular" then meant the forcing of every jurisdiction to change religion and laws to accord with the religion of its Sovereign, to be altered and respected with whoever ascended to power? Do you even know the origins and development of "secular' and that it's a highly technical term which is, because of its history, practically wortheless, really? Merley saying it means "not religious" doesn't really help--"religion" tends to cover almost anything and everything except what a pompous bigot with too much sophistry for his own good definitionally tries to exclude so he can attack "religious" and disclaim attacking what he (and others) currently approve of.
Religion has no place in making the laws of a secular nation.
The founders of the US said the opposite: they didn't want religion interfered with by government, they did want "good" religion influencing it extremely--even funded it (on George Washington's insistence--despite himself being a deist).
I find drones "repugnant". In fact, my religious beliefs demand that I not participate or support such indiscriminate killing.
So does the Constition: in the words of my liberal Constitutional lawyer, "insular cases; court made shit up--pulled from ass--permit US be empire unsubject to own laws outside of States. Bad. [grunt]"
I find drones "repugnant". In fact, my religious beliefs demand that I not participate or support such indiscriminate killing.
Do I get to take a pro-rated reduction in the amount of taxes I pay so I don't have to violate my faith and support this repugnant activity?
That's first.
Then why do you? See Henry David Thoreau on "Civil Disobedience." It only inspired a jewish man in South Africa--who happened to give it to a young Hindu Laywer there named Mohatma Gandhi, as well as another little-known figured named Nelson Mandela, two of which brought-down governments become illegitimate through forceful disregard of their own Constitution--much like the English lords cornered the king for expanding his power beyond his charter; much like the English put royalty on notice throughout Europe that they become illegitimate by breaking or ignoring their own laws (margins of Geneva Bible); and much like the American revolutionaries overthrew the English King for overstepping his bounds and violating the formal legal measures instituted to safeguard their rights.
Indeed, Thoreau's disapproval lay in the illegality of the war committed by these United Stats with Mexico, and he went to jail rather than pay a tax for it. You think whether or not you have a religious or conscientious objection is dependent on whether the unjust power or actors will accept it without punishing you? You know why they will right? If more get such ideas the emperor's nakedness starts to show. Thoreau escaped with a light penalty and inspired the take-down of reprehensible regimes in the modern era.
The hormones in birth control pills are used to treat a variety of health issues.
At which point it's not "birth control". Like it or not, the First Amendment was meant to be extremely expansive--far more than either Democrats or Repbulicrats want to admit: for the first it means a total disruption to making religious people fall into line with progressive utopian dictates, for the latter it means defeat of moral dictates, humorously enough, for the sake of religions, e.g. the contrived and laughable distinction (according to my liberal Constitutional lawyer-friend...who has like zero losses in court over his entire career and he's retired now) between "religious" and "religiously motivated" conduct was simply to observe "deference" to Congress--and totally rebel--against the amendment defending religious freedom, all because the court didn't give a shit about native religious ceremonies with only a thousand years of precedent requiring use of Peyote.
"Birth control", however, is not "medicine": it's a drug sure, but it doesn't heal anything. Progesterone, estrogens, etc./can/ be used as medicines for a variety of purposes--I know a very religious woman who has explosive gestation and endometriosis, among many other terrible conditions--who takes low doses (refusing higher due to risks to reproductivite capability that they pose, especially when she already has endometriosis) of estrogens not for birth control but those conditions BECAUSE in fact she wants to retard them just to have a sleight chance of having at least one child. I say quite frankly we do something about astronomical costs for childbirth--even if you give birth in a damn cab--and it's called prosecution (such as when giving birth in a cab), breaking apart the monopolistic and cartel-like advantages of the AMA (blocking medical training in nearly-empty schools built just to ensure higher wages for existing doctors--and even punishing them for up-front pricing, aka it's a cartel/guild sanctioned by Congress to comply with no modern principle of fairness or consumer-benefit rules applicable to anyone else), and make it easier to permit non-hospital authorities to write birth certs where it is currently difficult.
Churches also happen, if they're worth a damn, to do this little thing called "discipline" and "hold accountable" membership for misbehavior: I've seen visiting African pastors tear the fatsos-due-to-laziness a new one here in America, and laughed my butt off as they shamed "pastors" and others in attendance for "permitting among you those who dwell in gluttony? I bet you have plenty of adulterous-divorcees here too, right?" You get to watch large audiences' faces turn red for being less-than-upright and faithful to their own standards, it rocks.
And when such discipline and demand for responsible and dutiful living was more a norm...Churches happened to be excellent caretaking institutions for things now considered public services and goods and social safety nets, with far more efficiencies and adjusted-to-real (not claimed) need. Because ya know...(a) hardship for your screw-ups were met with "you get to deal with it unless you're about to die so you'll change and never do it again" and (b) they could not only give only what was needed, but socially and personally aid people to overcome deficiencies in need...or offer them services, housing, personal attention and care, etc. that meant you didn't need professionals and special clinical facilities and schemers driving-up costs to detached bureaucrats just signing checks.
Actually, I even know of some of those "nutjobs" who protest in front of abortion clinics, the kind who get accused by rags like Mother Jones for "not caring about existing children's suffering" and others with "well what, are you going to take care of the kids born then?" Funny thing is, they're mostly poor themselves, actually do take care of women and children convinced-not-to-abort and saved-from-abortion, get those folks educated,
Bitcoins can be considered (and, indeed, are presented everywhere) as a currency. Hence, they can be considered as an ill-gotten gain.
There's a problem with this, that really needs to be shouted from the rooftops so the ordinarily dim-witted politicians (not because they really are, but because their concerns extend as far as the thinking of their political interests' needs, meaning the labors of thinking by their constituents) know better. They "can" be so considered but doing so is a mistake; Bitcoin and related *coins are merely protocols in which numbers, meaningless without the rest of the system, are generated and transferred: it is something like an automated ledger which is unlike others because it's decentralized and self-monitoring
SO...http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4591965&cid=45775365, and not only that but this ledger is, essentially, simple a giant expression: it's a data-movement system which is meant to convey expression, so it does end-run the Feds, precisely as the First Amendment means that speech acts should do. Bitcoin and related are an embodied speech process useable for many other purposes...
And more ingeniously, it's simply a means for ordinary people--not just elite or superior intellects--to essentially decide they will trust a system to exchange value, or a house, or a book, or promise some kind of interaction...all without a "currency". "Is a currency" keeps getting stated out of excitement, but actual consideration of the substance of things (that's the legal sense in the noble sense that judges were meant to look to the substance and not form in sense that form is statement rather than substance) says otherwise.
At its base is code with instructions for disparate machines to intercooperate and perform both the automated tasks of reconciling actions on two sides of a line, or two accounts on either side of a 'send-receive' equation just as in accounting, except given this is virtual space nothing is being sent at all: another thing that troubles me with FinCen attempting to write self-serving "guidance"--statutes), which really are a strech of the law: there are no "coins", only numbers and verifications of promises, so on the one hand people can attach promises to "back" (if you trust it) these things with fiat, on the other you could exchange poems: it isn't currency.
It isn't currency. The "coins" aren't money. The whole damn system is a ledger for allowing normal, everyday people to do the same things that major organizations might do, whether move goods or exchange promises or accords of understanding and to...account, to track and preserve proof of these things, and all with more recording fidelity and redundancy than any prior accounting system, court stenographer, diplomatic record, etc.
So repeat after me: Bit "coin" is not a currency; it is a multi-variate decentralized-redundance-assuring ledger-like system useable for practically anything you can imagine that requires record-keeping.
Pretty boring and doesn't fit a sound bite...but also the key of its power: it's meant to make the bureaucrats et. al. who paper-push in a billion ways obsolete all while letting ordinary people preserve records privately that may or may not require later disclosure for legal actions and gurantees of contracts.
Unfortunately, no. It's not that I am unaware that Slashdot lags, just surprised at the greatness of lag in this particular instance. I mean, it is a lag of many months or more, not days or weeks. Pipelight's been around a while--check out Slashdot's own earlier story: http://slashdot.org/story/13/08/19/2311245/netflix-comes-to-linux-web-browsers-via-pipelight
One wonders whether the editors (there are editors, right?) here actually pay attention to submission or if it's all auto-run.
Dated much? Use of Pipelight to run Netflix on linux distros has been long available, publicized, shows for every search of "run Netflix on Linux", so...why is this here?
He wasn't being disrespectful because he thought my post was technically inaccurate, he was being disrespectful because a lot of people don't like me on slashdot because I have strong opinions and mercilessly club their favorite things
xD I enjoy your bitchiness, but I'm a wackjob.;) Keep it up.
And then in the US "psychos" like me (i.e. pro-constitutionalists) insist that any who insists a treaty can override the Constitution or be excuse to infringe our rights is a domestic enemy and subject either to crimes about aiding foreign powers or about conspiracy against rights--it's the only way to go, either we start threatening these people--and those who pay them to do this--with real consequences or we get to soon be little more than slaves free in name only. I know it's dangerous but it's necessary to do.
They would care because in theory they're principled men who dutifully uphold, well...duties. xD Doing the drop-in-the-bucket comparison isn't a great argument btw. It impresses only those who don't understand that large numbers are composed of small ones.;)
That's presuming there are principled men in Congress, like thinking judges will uphold and enforce the law and limitations--including on themselves--rather than innovate and favor pet prejudices and opinions; do you think the committee on currency did much more than snore about BTC when the BTC foundation was invited? Even cared to show-up on time so the committee had enough attendees to begin? Fuck no.
This is the exact kind of thing which makes people roll their eyes every time a vegetarian speaks up about the living conditions of feed-lot beef, or the destruction of bottom trawling and bycatch.
No, I roll my eyes at their mention of "feedlot beef" because they likely got their ideas from a slanted documentary and know nothing, because feedlots are mostly used only for temporarily congregating the beef to provide antibiotics and also an opportunity to check them for health and such things where you need the beef all together. Most US beef comes from small farms scattered about, and most of the time you see cattle at a feedlot it's the congregation of animals from various farms.
It reminds me of a former environmentalist who was studying ecology to go into the forest service (which he did) being taught in academic hauls by the fellow Gaia-worshippers how rock-hauling off of mountains is bad for the environment and causes all sorts of damage and bla bla bla...which it can. So some friends who actually worked at a company took him to former sites of hauling and showed pictures...mister environmentalists couldn't find a trace of an outfit that was there just a few years ago: unlike many of his peers this proved that, indeed, companies can responsibly manage fragile sites, and he was no longer a believer: he is the better public worker for it too: realist rather than zealot and idealist.
I suppose the point I'm making is that it is about goods crossing a (state or national) boundary. That is the logical point of taxation. Therefore (according to this principle) Texas can only tax a transaction between a Ohio resident that occurs in Maryland, if the 'result' of that transactions ends up in Texas!
No Sesostris, it cannot. Texas cannot tax transactions between Ohio and Maryland, and in fact they're forbidden from doing so. They can, however, impose an "excise" tax upon property of those within the State, which is due for purchases, as the current legalists' scheme says. A VAT unlike excise is a tax on imports by a person within a jurisdiction, among many other things, and in any form isn't really lawful within the US but if restricted to the importation part, then it's a different story from, say, the UK attempting to tax a transaction between Ohio and Maryland. Even the excise scheme, however, now in play in the US, was long something forbidden: while excises are legal, our Courts used to uphold this principle called "substance over form" and upheld "form over substance" where required by the Constitution to defend their rights, e.g. the voluntary compliance scheme (which isn't voluntary) which "voluntarily" lets people expose all their papers and effects to taxing authorities, as well as the schemes requiring every entity to account to them, is probably totally odious to the people who wrote Amendment IV; moreover, the commerce clause of these US prohibits States from imposing tariffs and duties on imports, which meant that excises imposed on things "not taxed anywhere else" (actual language used in the legal community) as subjected to tax today, were shot-down as unlawful, i.e. violating the form of government agreed to.
The whole point in having separate jurisdictions is to defeat government and force it to stay thin and light, but neither of our major parties--or their alternatives--really wants this, and folks like yourself in distance places have no grasp of it, there is nothing like this thought found in any major power in the world right now, not to mention the idea that disfavored or oldish or different-from-the-hegemony should be considered okay, not something punishable by law; even having gay friends, for instance, I've explained over and over on that principle why "hate crimes" and "hate speech" other such bull is unacceptable and violates fundamental human rights. (And I've had help from them mocking censure at universities as we started flinging group-name slurs at bullshit they tried making us never say in the name of being unoffensive; throwing-in the Asian and we had a the Irish-Indian-Jewish mutt, Asian-American bananna, and gay guy and they wouldn't dare say anything after we leveled "so you mean that to protect us, you have to make sure we don't even use our own slurs?") It's no accident that Orwell wrote Roman a Clef's based on the elite clases in England and the departments of government in which he worked, as well as the machinations outworking towards certain consequences in that society. Similar effects are under way here. Similar things have already taken place in Canada--Allam Bloom might have been charged (as have some religious leaders) with hate speech violations and convicted of crimes in front of human "rights" tribunals for writing "The Closing of the Canadian Mind" there and daring suggest that it's worthwhile considering whether homosexuality is moral or not (like Plato, or himself--also gay).
So no offense, but classical liberals here give little shrift or thought to those overseas who make comparisons with their forms of government and their operations in attempt to legitimize violations of their Constitution here. Not to mention, such changes first require a surrender and dissolution within the populace under the jurisdiction where democratic principles are at work. When our Constitution was written and then Amended with the Bill of Rights, it were not grants of rights, but rather a list of Common-Law
Yawn.:( This is really not that exciting or unknown already: my undergrad years saw us looking at studies and articles surrounding epigenetic inheritance, and Darwin has nothing to do with it: Darwin was Lamarkian btw, and the concepts of inherited traits between generations in Lamarkian evolution is quite a bit different, as things currently are understood, so this is not a point in its favor, neither in its disfavor, however.
The actual time of rising in China will vary across industries and need. Thus a lot of people there still rise and set with the sun...the clock is used for this (e.g. alarms) but isn't the ultimate factor.
p.s., ought to explain why another native-spanish-speaking student was in a Spanish course: it was high-level, and hispanic literature rather than teaching the language. Another of our students, a friend from Puerto Rico, was regularly pissed because the South American Profesora (actual PhD) was constantly correcting both her written and spoken Spanish as "wrong". "But that's how we speak/write!" to which the Profesora simply replied, "and then there is the academic standard which you keep failing to use, so WRONG!"
Slashdot Mirror
I've been all over the flyover states and have seen first hand what "free trade" has gotten us, its gotten us abandoned factories, boarded up buildings, and for many areas the only "jobs" are applying for government handouts and flipping burgers. To quote George Carlin "You know why they call it The American Dream? because you have to be asleep to believe in it"
Just want to point out that "free trade" isn't a bad idea, rather "free trade"with non-free countries where only those with pull, who participate in graft, who ensure large sums go to the gatekeepers...these are why this impoverishes people here: when the other country plays by a different set of rules and the result is a vampiricism enriching those here who help to enable it to get a (significant) chunk, and when those people there can never be permitted to be productive enough to counter-buy/participate (aka have economic means that might scare their governments), well...what do we expect?
It's called Human Resources, staffed as it is with people who look at certifications as though they must always be formal degrees: there's a reason even Forbes has called for literally firing every single human resources department in America (and possibly blacklisting those people), though they still haven't figured out that those auto-sorting-applicants computers/programs are about as bad.
Use slow, sloppy javascript (or javascript-like) and HTML to create big, serious-work desktop applications? Sincerely, fuck you.
Figures from a guy with "Religion is the greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time" as his signature. Frankly not surprising that someone who uses "religion" in the all-popularly vague manner and attributes it to all evil then goes on to be unappreciative:
Obviously there are a lot of potential (potential--repeat, potential) advantages and disadvantages to their approach. Of course, the work being done here means KDE is not so much simply a Desktop anymore rather than a giant set of resources designs precisely for accessibility: with each one being modularized, documented, and made ready to be called by any other app it means KDE is becoming more and more unix-like while also empowering less and less knowledgeable people without as much commitment of time to write and port and leverage applications and code.
I mean, though we all hate it, look at the explosion of apps and developments that took place when people realized they could use the COM object of IE and other Windows' parts in application, avoiding reimplementation and getting on to useful work: it does mean I'm still stuck--after years--with IE security/cert errors while using my work applications despite it pulling data over secured channels, yet my company's engineers did not have to rewrite a ton of functionality and then build a program to maintain the code.
KDE seems to be thinking far ahead: even if/when KDE the desktop becomes useless, its code should live-on: imagine Microsoft converting all its code into a set of plugins for its development frameworks: still assembled and offered as the Windows desktop and widely available as such a program, but useable for any other. I'm not even a programmer (I started in high school, got zapped for cancer, lost a lot of memory) and I think this rocks: it's open thinking, "hey use our stuff for whatever you need--we'll even make it really easy for you!" If only companies did this with their offerings. (Ask a giant like Oracle or Cisco some time about "hey we'd just like to use these functions rather than entire-system-sold"and see what happens.)
As for Javascript-like scripting...Javascript isn't sloppy: Javascript has a whole lot that Java and other serious languages lack. Javascript has advantages and disadvantages just as they do. And Javascript may or may not be written sloppily: with work like this, you can drop-in your own replacement if KDE provides a set of scripts that suck: one of the ideals for information in computing is the ability to transform the State of a system at will with a few lines of input or set of codes, and work like this only work to advance us nearer.
I'm assuming that the flippin' point is with crowdsourcing everything's laid on the table (or if not don't invest) and we should more and more stop asking gubmint to protect us (often some of the deepest pockets in the world). Those filing requirements, plans, etc...are all things that are business conventions anyways, why is the government involved in what would be demanded anyway? Oh yeah, some government-level bean counter needs to be able to crush small un-connected assemblies of people: this is unacceptable and my generation is about ready for revolt by holding these shittards to the fire for it.
I forgot to add that purely public and irreligious businesses can also impose morals clauses--which may even include restrictions on sexual behavior, even "deviancy" that includes quasi-protected choices of lifestyle and behavior like homosexuality--as these are considerations of image and what may affect valuation and confidence and purchasing decisions of and for the business. You're going to be pissed when you hear how the courts rule when employees challenge these...
I'll hint again: if you don't like it, don't agree to the terms and conditions for joining someone else's organization.
it has no right to force its opinions about legal, private behavior on its employees, or to punish them for their purely private behavior.
What you are saying is, employees have a right to employment in someone else's organization and to disregard any kind of agreement made with conditions for said employment? Or that religions organizations have less right to discipline members for unacceptable moral conduct than corporations do for potentially embarrassing ethical breaches? You must have a brilliant mind in there.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that blood transfusions are immoral.
And they refuse them.
Christian Scientists believe that most modern medicine is immoral.
And as is their right, they refuse participation.
The Church of the Holy Buck believes that any treatment that negatively affects the bottom line is immoral.
Any treatment can undergo a price increase so I don't know what you're talking about.
Should all of those be allowed to refuse to pay for any of them?
Yes: that's what a truly free society where people are responsible for themselves--as opposed to our increasingly totalitarian nanny-state--does: leave people who do not engage in any direct harm alone. Of course, your ilk are attempting to redefine mere verbal disapproval as "harm".
If a religious organisation finds that it is immoral to perform a particular service, then they are welcome to get out of the business of providing that service.
In other words, you believe in the power of the State to dictate how any service shall be performed, and therefore what can and cannot be accessible, and not the right to offer a service you know to obtain a living? Bet you believe in the right to free bread but define "business" as a non-right. Hint: business is just human activity to exchange goods and [abilities] so as to obtain the means to live--and for some who are lucky to have a little extra maybe to go have some fun, whether wholesome or whether that includes hookers and blo.
No one is forcing churches to be in the insurance business and I can cite several passages from the bible, including quotes from Jesus and St. Paul that indicate that they shouldn't [your grammar is wrong here]
I'm sure you can cite the beatitudes to reimagine Jesus as an ethical-liberal hippie-guru like a lot of want-Him-for-his-name's-authority sophists too, but you'd be wrong and and idiot.
If they want to be religions, they can have any crazy rules that they want. If they want to be businesses
Great, "fuck them and let them die", I'm sure you'll try to write rules in accordance with "those who don't work, don't eat' (also in the bible) so they can have the right only to die if you don't like them. Newflash you know-nothing bigotted my-way-or-no-rights-for-your statist totalitarian nutjob: people like me are getting so fed up with threats-----even to others' rights: I lost my evangsmellical religion by disassembling the mass of contradictory bullshit I was taught as a kid when I finally had time not only to read the bible, but learn the historical data and hermeneutical principles--and smattering of Hebrew and Greek to handle exegetical tools and original language dictionaries and even a Greek New Testament now and then: it was quite useful actually--I fed the scoffers on our university plaza the questions necessary to expose the professional preachers who came for being charlatans and know-nothings that they were. Sincere know-nothings, but doing God's work for them seemed to mean they needed only know a few simple things, though pretending to be sophisticated (not just to other's) was a perk I guess--anything to get prayers of acceptance of Jesus.
But quite seriously to our times, here in America
"No one is forcing [PEOPLE] in the insurance business [to provide services against their will or deny them the right to their trade or chosen profession, because since]" "they can have any crazy rules that they want" [but nobody can be forced to purchase from them rather than another business if they feel their offering is better], [and since we have well-functioning courts based on rule of law principles and a high regard for substance over formalities and procedural technicalities that aren't made-up for the courts' own convenience any failure to provide what was agreed will result in a sure victory for
Your packaging of your regurgitation of the unchewed pre-packaged "intellectual position" is leaking. The only thing sensible, because it is grounded in an actual phenomenological situation is "[should I] Allow my child to die from an easily cured malady because I believe in faith healing?" You do realize the US is actually among the most "religious" "nations" in the world right? Or that "secularism" is a well-critiqued, weaponized-for-politics, usually senseless term right? That Westphalia was not actually a secular triumph but that "secular" then meant the forcing of every jurisdiction to change religion and laws to accord with the religion of its Sovereign, to be altered and respected with whoever ascended to power? Do you even know the origins and development of "secular' and that it's a highly technical term which is, because of its history, practically wortheless, really? Merley saying it means "not religious" doesn't really help--"religion" tends to cover almost anything and everything except what a pompous bigot with too much sophistry for his own good definitionally tries to exclude so he can attack "religious" and disclaim attacking what he (and others) currently approve of.
Religion has no place in making the laws of a secular nation.
The founders of the US said the opposite: they didn't want religion interfered with by government, they did want "good" religion influencing it extremely--even funded it (on George Washington's insistence--despite himself being a deist).
I find drones "repugnant". In fact, my religious beliefs demand that I not participate or support such indiscriminate killing.
So does the Constition: in the words of my liberal Constitutional lawyer, "insular cases; court made shit up--pulled from ass--permit US be empire unsubject to own laws outside of States. Bad. [grunt]"
I find drones "repugnant". In fact, my religious beliefs demand that I not participate or support such indiscriminate killing.
Do I get to take a pro-rated reduction in the amount of taxes I pay so I don't have to violate my faith and support this repugnant activity?
That's first.
Then why do you? See Henry David Thoreau on "Civil Disobedience." It only inspired a jewish man in South Africa--who happened to give it to a young Hindu Laywer there named Mohatma Gandhi, as well as another little-known figured named Nelson Mandela, two of which brought-down governments become illegitimate through forceful disregard of their own Constitution--much like the English lords cornered the king for expanding his power beyond his charter; much like the English put royalty on notice throughout Europe that they become illegitimate by breaking or ignoring their own laws (margins of Geneva Bible); and much like the American revolutionaries overthrew the English King for overstepping his bounds and violating the formal legal measures instituted to safeguard their rights.
Indeed, Thoreau's disapproval lay in the illegality of the war committed by these United Stats with Mexico, and he went to jail rather than pay a tax for it. You think whether or not you have a religious or conscientious objection is dependent on whether the unjust power or actors will accept it without punishing you? You know why they will right? If more get such ideas the emperor's nakedness starts to show. Thoreau escaped with a light penalty and inspired the take-down of reprehensible regimes in the modern era.
The hormones in birth control pills are used to treat a variety of health issues.
At which point it's not "birth control". Like it or not, the First Amendment was meant to be extremely expansive--far more than either Democrats or Repbulicrats want to admit: for the first it means a total disruption to making religious people fall into line with progressive utopian dictates, for the latter it means defeat of moral dictates, humorously enough, for the sake of religions, e.g. the contrived and laughable distinction (according to my liberal Constitutional lawyer-friend...who has like zero losses in court over his entire career and he's retired now) between "religious" and "religiously motivated" conduct was simply to observe "deference" to Congress--and totally rebel--against the amendment defending religious freedom, all because the court didn't give a shit about native religious ceremonies with only a thousand years of precedent requiring use of Peyote.
/can/ be used as medicines for a variety of purposes--I know a very religious woman who has explosive gestation and endometriosis, among many other terrible conditions--who takes low doses (refusing higher due to risks to reproductivite capability that they pose, especially when she already has endometriosis) of estrogens not for birth control but those conditions BECAUSE in fact she wants to retard them just to have a sleight chance of having at least one child. I say quite frankly we do something about astronomical costs for childbirth--even if you give birth in a damn cab--and it's called prosecution (such as when giving birth in a cab), breaking apart the monopolistic and cartel-like advantages of the AMA (blocking medical training in nearly-empty schools built just to ensure higher wages for existing doctors--and even punishing them for up-front pricing, aka it's a cartel/guild sanctioned by Congress to comply with no modern principle of fairness or consumer-benefit rules applicable to anyone else), and make it easier to permit non-hospital authorities to write birth certs where it is currently difficult.
"Birth control", however, is not "medicine": it's a drug sure, but it doesn't heal anything. Progesterone, estrogens, etc.
Churches also happen, if they're worth a damn, to do this little thing called "discipline" and "hold accountable" membership for misbehavior: I've seen visiting African pastors tear the fatsos-due-to-laziness a new one here in America, and laughed my butt off as they shamed "pastors" and others in attendance for "permitting among you those who dwell in gluttony? I bet you have plenty of adulterous-divorcees here too, right?" You get to watch large audiences' faces turn red for being less-than-upright and faithful to their own standards, it rocks.
And when such discipline and demand for responsible and dutiful living was more a norm...Churches happened to be excellent caretaking institutions for things now considered public services and goods and social safety nets, with far more efficiencies and adjusted-to-real (not claimed) need. Because ya know...(a) hardship for your screw-ups were met with "you get to deal with it unless you're about to die so you'll change and never do it again" and (b) they could not only give only what was needed, but socially and personally aid people to overcome deficiencies in need...or offer them services, housing, personal attention and care, etc. that meant you didn't need professionals and special clinical facilities and schemers driving-up costs to detached bureaucrats just signing checks.
Actually, I even know of some of those "nutjobs" who protest in front of abortion clinics, the kind who get accused by rags like Mother Jones for "not caring about existing children's suffering" and others with "well what, are you going to take care of the kids born then?" Funny thing is, they're mostly poor themselves, actually do take care of women and children convinced-not-to-abort and saved-from-abortion, get those folks educated,
The reported demise of the stick is long overdue, http://www.archive.org/download/whats_wrong_chesterton_librivox/whatswrong_17_chesterton.mp3
"Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson: A fascinatingly disturbing thought", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeJoVeKSsyA or "on contacting aliens."
Bitcoins can be considered (and, indeed, are presented everywhere) as a currency. Hence, they can be considered as an ill-gotten gain.
There's a problem with this, that really needs to be shouted from the rooftops so the ordinarily dim-witted politicians (not because they really are, but because their concerns extend as far as the thinking of their political interests' needs, meaning the labors of thinking by their constituents) know better. They "can" be so considered but doing so is a mistake; Bitcoin and related *coins are merely protocols in which numbers, meaningless without the rest of the system, are generated and transferred: it is something like an automated ledger which is unlike others because it's decentralized and self-monitoring
SO...http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4591965&cid=45775365, and not only that but this ledger is, essentially, simple a giant expression: it's a data-movement system which is meant to convey expression, so it does end-run the Feds, precisely as the First Amendment means that speech acts should do. Bitcoin and related are an embodied speech process useable for many other purposes...
And more ingeniously, it's simply a means for ordinary people--not just elite or superior intellects--to essentially decide they will trust a system to exchange value, or a house, or a book, or promise some kind of interaction...all without a "currency". "Is a currency" keeps getting stated out of excitement, but actual consideration of the substance of things (that's the legal sense in the noble sense that judges were meant to look to the substance and not form in sense that form is statement rather than substance) says otherwise.
At its base is code with instructions for disparate machines to intercooperate and perform both the automated tasks of reconciling actions on two sides of a line, or two accounts on either side of a 'send-receive' equation just as in accounting, except given this is virtual space nothing is being sent at all: another thing that troubles me with FinCen attempting to write self-serving "guidance"--statutes), which really are a strech of the law: there are no "coins", only numbers and verifications of promises, so on the one hand people can attach promises to "back" (if you trust it) these things with fiat, on the other you could exchange poems: it isn't currency.
It isn't currency. The "coins" aren't money. The whole damn system is a ledger for allowing normal, everyday people to do the same things that major organizations might do, whether move goods or exchange promises or accords of understanding and to...account, to track and preserve proof of these things, and all with more recording fidelity and redundancy than any prior accounting system, court stenographer, diplomatic record, etc.
So repeat after me: Bit "coin" is not a currency; it is a multi-variate decentralized-redundance-assuring ledger-like system useable for practically anything you can imagine that requires record-keeping.
Pretty boring and doesn't fit a sound bite...but also the key of its power: it's meant to make the bureaucrats et. al. who paper-push in a billion ways obsolete all while letting ordinary people preserve records privately that may or may not require later disclosure for legal actions and gurantees of contracts.
Unfortunately, no. It's not that I am unaware that Slashdot lags, just surprised at the greatness of lag in this particular instance. I mean, it is a lag of many months or more, not days or weeks. Pipelight's been around a while--check out Slashdot's own earlier story: http://slashdot.org/story/13/08/19/2311245/netflix-comes-to-linux-web-browsers-via-pipelight One wonders whether the editors (there are editors, right?) here actually pay attention to submission or if it's all auto-run.
Dated much? Use of Pipelight to run Netflix on linux distros has been long available, publicized, shows for every search of "run Netflix on Linux", so...why is this here?
He wasn't being disrespectful because he thought my post was technically inaccurate, he was being disrespectful because a lot of people don't like me on slashdot because I have strong opinions and mercilessly club their favorite things
xD I enjoy your bitchiness, but I'm a wackjob. ;) Keep it up.
Regards.
And then in the US "psychos" like me (i.e. pro-constitutionalists) insist that any who insists a treaty can override the Constitution or be excuse to infringe our rights is a domestic enemy and subject either to crimes about aiding foreign powers or about conspiracy against rights--it's the only way to go, either we start threatening these people--and those who pay them to do this--with real consequences or we get to soon be little more than slaves free in name only. I know it's dangerous but it's necessary to do.
They would care because in theory they're principled men who dutifully uphold, well...duties. xD Doing the drop-in-the-bucket comparison isn't a great argument btw. It impresses only those who don't understand that large numbers are composed of small ones. ;)
That's presuming there are principled men in Congress, like thinking judges will uphold and enforce the law and limitations--including on themselves--rather than innovate and favor pet prejudices and opinions; do you think the committee on currency did much more than snore about BTC when the BTC foundation was invited? Even cared to show-up on time so the committee had enough attendees to begin? Fuck no.
No, I roll my eyes at their mention of "feedlot beef" because they likely got their ideas from a slanted documentary and know nothing, because feedlots are mostly used only for temporarily congregating the beef to provide antibiotics and also an opportunity to check them for health and such things where you need the beef all together. Most US beef comes from small farms scattered about, and most of the time you see cattle at a feedlot it's the congregation of animals from various farms.
It reminds me of a former environmentalist who was studying ecology to go into the forest service (which he did) being taught in academic hauls by the fellow Gaia-worshippers how rock-hauling off of mountains is bad for the environment and causes all sorts of damage and bla bla bla...which it can. So some friends who actually worked at a company took him to former sites of hauling and showed pictures...mister environmentalists couldn't find a trace of an outfit that was there just a few years ago: unlike many of his peers this proved that, indeed, companies can responsibly manage fragile sites, and he was no longer a believer: he is the better public worker for it too: realist rather than zealot and idealist.
No Sesostris, it cannot. Texas cannot tax transactions between Ohio and Maryland, and in fact they're forbidden from doing so. They can, however, impose an "excise" tax upon property of those within the State, which is due for purchases, as the current legalists' scheme says. A VAT unlike excise is a tax on imports by a person within a jurisdiction, among many other things, and in any form isn't really lawful within the US but if restricted to the importation part, then it's a different story from, say, the UK attempting to tax a transaction between Ohio and Maryland. Even the excise scheme, however, now in play in the US, was long something forbidden: while excises are legal, our Courts used to uphold this principle called "substance over form" and upheld "form over substance" where required by the Constitution to defend their rights, e.g. the voluntary compliance scheme (which isn't voluntary) which "voluntarily" lets people expose all their papers and effects to taxing authorities, as well as the schemes requiring every entity to account to them, is probably totally odious to the people who wrote Amendment IV; moreover, the commerce clause of these US prohibits States from imposing tariffs and duties on imports, which meant that excises imposed on things "not taxed anywhere else" (actual language used in the legal community) as subjected to tax today, were shot-down as unlawful, i.e. violating the form of government agreed to.
The whole point in having separate jurisdictions is to defeat government and force it to stay thin and light, but neither of our major parties--or their alternatives--really wants this, and folks like yourself in distance places have no grasp of it, there is nothing like this thought found in any major power in the world right now, not to mention the idea that disfavored or oldish or different-from-the-hegemony should be considered okay, not something punishable by law; even having gay friends, for instance, I've explained over and over on that principle why "hate crimes" and "hate speech" other such bull is unacceptable and violates fundamental human rights. (And I've had help from them mocking censure at universities as we started flinging group-name slurs at bullshit they tried making us never say in the name of being unoffensive; throwing-in the Asian and we had a the Irish-Indian-Jewish mutt, Asian-American bananna, and gay guy and they wouldn't dare say anything after we leveled "so you mean that to protect us, you have to make sure we don't even use our own slurs?") It's no accident that Orwell wrote Roman a Clef's based on the elite clases in England and the departments of government in which he worked, as well as the machinations outworking towards certain consequences in that society. Similar effects are under way here. Similar things have already taken place in Canada--Allam Bloom might have been charged (as have some religious leaders) with hate speech violations and convicted of crimes in front of human "rights" tribunals for writing "The Closing of the Canadian Mind" there and daring suggest that it's worthwhile considering whether homosexuality is moral or not (like Plato, or himself--also gay).
So no offense, but classical liberals here give little shrift or thought to those overseas who make comparisons with their forms of government and their operations in attempt to legitimize violations of their Constitution here. Not to mention, such changes first require a surrender and dissolution within the populace under the jurisdiction where democratic principles are at work. When our Constitution was written and then Amended with the Bill of Rights, it were not grants of rights, but rather a list of Common-Law
And they also capitalized "States" for meaning, a meaning which escapes SirGarlon as evidenced by his question.
Yawn. :( This is really not that exciting or unknown already: my undergrad years saw us looking at studies and articles surrounding epigenetic inheritance, and Darwin has nothing to do with it: Darwin was Lamarkian btw, and the concepts of inherited traits between generations in Lamarkian evolution is quite a bit different, as things currently are understood, so this is not a point in its favor, neither in its disfavor, however.
The actual time of rising in China will vary across industries and need. Thus a lot of people there still rise and set with the sun...the clock is used for this (e.g. alarms) but isn't the ultimate factor.
p.s., ought to explain why another native-spanish-speaking student was in a Spanish course: it was high-level, and hispanic literature rather than teaching the language. Another of our students, a friend from Puerto Rico, was regularly pissed because the South American Profesora (actual PhD) was constantly correcting both her written and spoken Spanish as "wrong". "But that's how we speak/write!" to which the Profesora simply replied, "and then there is the academic standard which you keep failing to use, so WRONG!"