So..... you're saying that Science and English are both hard?

p.s.
fortitude

-

You've flipping the logic backwards.

Of course "Leviticus says..." is an unsustainable argument.
The entire point of raising "Leviticus says [shellfish]" is to smack someone over the head with the fact that "Leviticus says..." is an unsustainable argument. If someone wants to cite Old Testament Law as an argument, they need something better than "I personally enjoy shellfish and I personally do not enjoy homosexuality" as a basis for claiming one is a valid God's Law and the other is a "no longer relevant" God's Law.

Even if we take the Bible as the undisputed word of God, we still have the Old Testament was fulfilled/thrown_out/clarified/whatever_you_want_to_call_it by Jesus. Therefore "Leviticus says [homosexuality]" is an unsustainable argument. Saying "Leviticus says [shellfish]" does not positively establish that homosexuality is fine and dandy, but it does positively refute any "Leviticus says..." argument that homosexuality is any worse than eating shellfish or wearing a poly-cotton mixed fiber T-shit.

-

*I* haven't. The present reality has.
I said *IF* the government issues marriage licenses *THEN* the government cannot discriminate based on race/religion/gender in granting those licenses.

*IF* the government gets entirely out of the marriage business, I'm fine with that. That is a perfectly reasonable perfectly valid option. If you want to get the law fixed to eliminate government-marriage-licenses, you have my blessing and my passive support. I don't think you're likely to succeed, but if you do, great, problem solved.

But so long as the government *is* issuing marriage licenses, I would appreciate your support, either passive support or preferably active support, that the government cannot use race/religion/gender as a basis to discriminate against interracial/interfaith/gay marriages.

-

We could certainly do with a lot less people going around saying Math is hard. That's defeatist thinking. Math is easy!

I've had dozens of college profs and the ones which stood out were the ones who were good listeners as well and perceptive of what students struggle over. Generally I found when I thought a course was 'hard' I knew 80% or more of the material or concepts, but I was struggling over one or two things which blocked conceptual understanding of things further on.

Subbing, as a TA once in a programming class I was perplexed how people couldn't wrap their heads around the idea of a Variable (think of it as a name on a bucket, into which I add or remove apples, yet they were still stumped).

Things do tend to be more 'hard' when the student spends more time listening to their nay-saying peers than their instructors. When you actually believe Math, Chemistry or Physics is 'hard' your belief is your own largest obstacle to learning.

Go to Groklaw and search the COMES archive.

The NSA doesn't need any warrant at all if GCHQ does the work. Which it does. So don't worry, US citizens aren't entitled to privacy either.

no. Not due to patents. It was so that they could control the standard. IOW, they are using their economic might/consumer base to control things.

And to be honest, America needs to raise tariffs against China. China has over 400 tariffs while subsidizing/dumps goods on western foreign markets, esp. America. Europe is next.

Thats funny. That is just what Europe did and China currently does.
Europe told all of their colonies to send them raw material and then did their best to prevent anybody from competing against them.
America was simply a massive economic powerhouse because of WWII.
Now china is cheating massively, and the world allow it. Sickening.

Chinese owned businesses are still under gov. orders. And part of that is they MUST fragment this. What they want to do, is use their overwhelming population and sales to drive down prices, but then control the standards.
IOW, doing it there will help nothing.

The bigger question is what if anything will the media do with this newfound info.

Considering how the press reacted to Edward Snowden's revelations, they will probably ask the question, "Should LinkedIn be prosecuted for leaking this information?" and, "Is LinkedIn a traitor?"

The summary does not tell me what this thing, apparently popular in Beijing, actually is! You could at least link their website. :)

Anyway, looking at their website, it looks like it's a "cloud operating system", i.e. infrastructure for managing a cluster in a virtualized, "cloud-like" way. Does anyone know how it compares to other such platforms, like Eucalyptus and the confusingly-similar-in-name CloudStack?

There's a lot of "fourth monkey" dynamics that goes into it. It's especially hard to stop infighting when you've spent decades selecting employees to be, what's a polite word, "competitive".

2 different purchases, and subsequent returns. 1 Toshiba, 1 Lenovo 64 bit bios on both