How do you think the concept of Separation of Church and State would fare under President Romney?
Far better than under a 'mainstream' Christian. Who understands better about religious persecution than Mormons? The last thing they'll do is legislate so that one religion is able to dominate more than others, because that dominant religion won't be theirs.
How about your rights to be left alone even after death?
You know what? I'm dead. If it makes my family happy to baptize me in whatever they want so that it eases their mind that they'll eventually meet me in the afterlife, that's fine with me. I'm, you know, dead, so it doesn't matter anymore. If they want to stuff me and put me in the living room, hey, that's great. Whatever makes them happy. Funerals are for the living, not for the dead.
Of course, many Catholics claim that Protestants are "not really Christianity", either (and vice-versa).
I will say one thing about Mormons... of all the people I've met of different religions, Mormons were by far the nicest and most genuine people. They actually try and live the tenants of their religion. I'm an atheist, but if I had to pick a religion to follow because I wanted the culture, I'd pick being a Mormon. I hate alcohol anyway.
They're not perfect of course (their support of California's Prop 8 is particularly troubling), but overall having Romney be a Mormon is a positive in my book, compared to, say, Santorum who is a full-blown religious wack job.
I haven't ever had memory leak issues with Firefox, at least not in the last 5 years...
Sheesh. If you say you don't experience the problem, why are you commenting on the issue at all? I don't use extensions. And I don't give a crap what the devs think, all they have to do is look through their own bug tracking for literally hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of bug reports on this issue. And ultimately, there is only one bug report that matters to me: my own. IT SUCKS FOR ME. No extension, and the memory grows and grows. And obviously others experience the problem as well.
Why doesn't it happen to you and some other people? Who the hell knows? But that doesn't mean it's not a huge problem for a lot of other people.
Seems like just about every article that comes out about Firefox there's a dozen or so folks that keep complaining about how slow Firefox is and how much memory it leaks.
... And this is the problem with Firefox. The horrible memory leak problems have been traditionally dismissed by the Firefox team as only seen by "trolls". I gave on Firefox because it constantly sucked more and more and more memory, and I had to constantly restart the damn thing when it got over 2 gigabytes with a handful of tabs open.
Now, maybe the Firefox team (FINALLY) fixed it, and maybe they didn't. But we can't tell from this test, because they didn't do a memory leak test. What they need to do is open 41 sites, close 40 sites, open 40 sites, close 40 sites, on and on and see what happens. I know what will happen with Chrome -- since it uses a process per tab, all that memory will intrinsically get given back to the O/S. Firefox -- who knows?
But what I do know is that it's too little, too late for me. I love Chrome, and Firefox has no compelling features to make me come back.
And your attitude is why Firefox is losing. I had the same memory issues reported over and over by people, and the response from the Firefox people always was, "Oh, well, it works for me! It must either be a bad plugin or your imagination. In short, YOU suck, it's not Firefox's fault."
Well, I don't use plugins and it WAS Firefox's fault. When I can open a web site, close it, open it, close it, open it, close it, and observe the memory going up and up and up and up, it's a memory leak. Submit the bug you say? It's already been submitted 1,000 times.
So maybe Version 7 they finally got serious about the memory problems, but I doubt it. And why should I go back when Chrome is better in every way, especially speed?
Eh, I don't think vagrancy laws are clearly unconstitutional. There is clear precedent to having local laws that prevent people from being a nuisance to other people (e.g., freedom of speech doesn't mean you can get out your bullhorn at 3am). Loitering and vagrancy are a nuisance to people and businesses, and causes people to be intimidated and fearful of traveling in their own town.
Wait, what? The law prohibits homelessness? In the US? Where?
Vagrancy Laws cover that, as well as loitering laws.
Repel them. Repel them. Induce them to relinquish the spheroid. - Indiana University fans' chant for their perennially bad football team