I'm hoping you're just a troll (and that I'm falling for you), because it would be really sad that you totally missed what the parent (and many repliers) were actually quoting from:
Granted, it takes cash to run sites like these, but they were fine before. The question is, do some of you here want to band together, get whatever is available of slashcode and rebuild this community somewhere else? We can try to make it as it once was, a haven of geeky knowledge and frosty piss, delivered free of charge in a clean community moderated format."
Which is exactly why many slashdot conservatives - many of whom are fascists under the guise of "ron paul libertarians" - would be against this company releasing this information.
I'm sorry, but what?! I have never met someone claiming to be a Ron Paul Libertarian (of whom I've seen many comments here on Slashdot from) express opinions that promote the military-industrial complex, the keeping of secrets of government action by force or the trampling of individual rights. Conservative fascists hiding themselves as Ron Paul Libertarians would be like Neo-Nazi skinheads hiding amongst members of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League.
With that said, I have seen people who blindly oppose whatever the `other team` is doing or blindly supporting what `their team` is doing without respect to principles -- but I've mostly seen that in the real world in partisan venues. (Fox, MSNBC, etc.) I don't see it here on Slashdot, as much.
And by using affiliates as a sales force, a "significant business nexus" is established in the purchaser's State. Hence, they have to collect sales tax for the purchaser's State, because they pay a sales force there.
I admit I do not authoritatively know how Amazon's affiliate program works. I read TFA and have listened to some pod casts that want listeners to make Amazon purchases through their link. I'm not sure how accurate it is to describe or catagorize Amazon affiliates as a sales force.
I have trouble seeing how the commission an affiliate receives is that significantly different than paying for an outright ad. For example, if a mail-order company took out an ad in The New York Times but listed an order-taking phone number that was specific & unique to that TNYT ad, and the mail-order company made a deal with TNYT to pay them a little extra every time an order is placed using that phone number... I am now to believe that creates a "substantial nexus" of the mail-order company in New York state?
What it would come down to, for me, is how Amazon pays their affiliates. If Amazon was paying them as employees, then that would justify claiming they are Amazon's sales force. (I think it is a fair assumption that Amazon is not doing that.) If Amazon is paying them proportionately on the click-through purchases, then I don't see how it can be treated anything other than an ad contract.
If that is the case, then there is nothing to stop New York state from expanding their law to demand any out-of-state advertiser in a New York publication, TV, radio station or website start collecting sales tax for anything sold to a New York resident.
Since these warrants tend to be used for national security investigations, such as into spying and terrorism, how to you think that telling people they are being investigated isn't a bad thing?
I think the story mixes FISA warrants and Patriot Act National Security Letters (NSLs). I don't know about FISA warrants, but I've read that recipients of NSLs are forbidden from saying anything to anyone about having received them. I would not be surprised to learn the Federal government claims the same authority for FISA warrants.
Recipients of these NSLs and FISA warrants are not complaining because they cannot tell the subject of the investigation. They are complaining about the gag order -- even to the extent that they cannot publish statistics on how many government requests they've received.
The Catholic Church forbids all messing with creation of life. IVF is forbidden. Certainly artificial wombs would be considered an abomination.
I completely agree with your belief that the Catholic Church would find it morally unacceptable to artificially conceive a child and place it in an artificial womb. However, I think they would find it morally acceptable to transplant a child from the womb to an artificial one if the mother could not, for medical reasons, carry the child to term or if there was a problem with the child that made it easier to treat the child if he/she was in an artificial womb.
But, like you wrote, transplanting an already-implanted embryo is beyond our current capabilities. Who knows what we will be capable of in the future.
it seems to me there was a point, when she could of just walked away, and instead she came back to argue, bitch, or whatever.
But there was a point there when she could of just left, like they were letting her do, and she didn't.
It is my understanding (sorry, I don't have the time to find a reference right now) that once a person enters the security-checking area one cannot leave without being checked. This is supposedly to stop terrorist test runs. "Oh, they're using that scanning machine today; that will catch me. I better come back and try again tomorrow."
And one about a similar time viewer (I forget the name).
Perhaps you are thinking of The Dead Past by Isaac Asimov. That story features a researcher-for-hire's attempt to build a chronoscope in a society where all academic research is highly regulated and research into time-viewing is very restricted. It has a thought-provoking ending.
I've been following the U.S. elections for a bit (the selecting of the Republican candidate);
and they all want to increase their popularity with the Republican voters by jingoism against Iran.
I've noticed there was one Republican candidate who didn't do that...
I don't think that there is anything wrong with playing in a porno or even in a theatre production.
I would not watch the porn with them in it though.
I truly find your comment interesting. Please do not think my comment is some moral critique; I really am just curious about why you feel that way and how it lines up (or doesn't) with my thoughts on the topic.
Why wouldn't you watch the porn film with your mother, wife or daughter acting in it? Is it just because you wouldn't be as stimulated by seeing (for example) your mother as you would a stranger? (I.e. the `ick` factor?) This is a serious question: what if your mother was a really good actress? I.e. if she wore a wig and make-up that didn't make it obvious she was your mother -- or maybe the pornography just didn't show her face that much -- would you feel more comfortable watching her perform?
Although I do not support legislation to outlaw pornography, the knowledge that the women in it are somebody's mother, daughter, sister or, sometimes even, wife causes me to pause and think: "is it moral for me to treat this woman differently than I'd want my mother, daughter, sister or wife treated? If so, why?" Why would I be willing to patronize those women I know & love in any other line of work but not this one?
I've come to realize it isn't just the `ick` factor; I believe there is something de-humanizing about acting in pornography. I think the viewer does not appreciate the actress for the whole human she is, but instead reduces her to a status or respect level something below what one would want for the other women in his life.
Just curious what your thoughts are.
Great. I'm glad they're patching security vulnerabilities in their 32-bit product. But why do 64-bit users have to use a vulnerable version from 7 months ago?
Link to Original Source
Supposedly some of these spent fuel rods in building #4 caught fire
First off, the fuel pellets in these boiling water reactors are made of uranium dioxide -- a ceramic which has a melting point of 2,865 degrees Celsius and the zircaloy cladding melts somewhere in the range of 1,850 to 1,975 degrees Celsius (depends on which alloy they are using). I could not even find a combustion temperature for either material. That doesn't matter, though, because the temperature of the spent fuel in the pool would be somewhere around 200 degrees Celsius, depending on how long it had been taken out of the reactor.
So it is unreasonable to speculate that the fuel rods have `caught fire`.
Secondly, Tokyo Electric Power Co. said that an oil leak in a cooling water pump at Unit 4 was the cause of the fire the media keeps talking about.
I would strongly suggest anybody interested in following this event watch that web page and/or this one for accurate, knowledgeable, non-scaremongering reporting. I've heard too many news reports totally screw the facts up. (Like when they reported there was a 3rd explosion when really it was the 2nd explosion that happened in the #3 reactor building.)