Jut claim NSA did it and you've been forbidden to elaborate.
Jut claim NSA did it and you've been forbidden to elaborate.
Deporting people who are not citizens is required if they are not properly authorized by our government to be here. This is not just for the benefit of the people who live here, but most importantly it is also for the benefit of the people who are here illegally. Also, it is the law.
If you want illegal immigrants to be legal, change the law. Until then, uphold the law.
It really is that simple, and no malice or hatred is required. Well, except on your part, as a necessity of continuing to support the exploitation of human beings by corporations, coyotes, human traffickers, and the like.
As for intolerance, I can assure you what you just wrote is incredibly intolerant. You express immense concern towards what the "right" is doing and who they are, but very little concern for the effect that illegal immigration has on the immigrants themselves and also on the citizens who are displaced by these immigrants.
What you fail to realize is that you are not talking about being tolerant of Mexicans (actually many of the illegal immigrants come from other countries) or "accepting differences." You are talking about being tolerant of illegality. You are talking about subverting the sovereignty of a nation. You are talking about weakening the security and well being of the nation. You are talking about a multitude of issues, none of which actually intersect tolerance and acceptance of differences, but you call them that because who doesn't want to be tolerant and diverse? Mis-definition as an argumentation technique is still disingenuous, no matter how well intentioned your misdirection is.
That you are content with the virtual slavery that some immigrants experience while here is particularly telling. That you express rage at the "right" is further proof that your concerns are not for the lives, health, and well being of other humans.
If you were truly concerned with these people you would be angry at both parties. You would have been screaming your head off at Obama for not taking care of the issue of amnesty during his first two years. You would have been incensed at the number of immigrants that are being used in human trafficking of sex slaves IN MEXICO before they ever get to America.
Instead you see deportation of illegal immigrants as an attempt by the "right" to "destroy America and everything it stands for." America is a Republic. A nation of laws, most of which are mutable and can be changed by the will of the people. You advocate for breaking laws, not changing them. You advocate for breaking these laws on behalf of people who aren't even American citizens. You advocate for this lawbreaking even though it takes jobs, income, and taxes from Americans that need it most.
You are the one trying to "destroy America and everything is stands for," sir. I suggest you stop demonizing people around you and start holding your own political party accountable for the laws that are currently on the books. The sooner we can get politically active people to take responsibility for the political landscape and laws that are in place, the sooner we can create a solution that ticks all of the boxes, namely protection of the US worker and citizens, security of the US border, and prevention of the exploitation of immigrants. Name calling, vituperation, blaming the "other party," and supporting lawlessness are not the American way. Electing political candidates that see a problem and create solutions is. Unfortunately, with your hatred-blow off valve running wide open and facing the opposition you can't generate enough steam to actually make a difference where it matters.
I prefer to preprogram myself when meeting someone new. I will intentionally think of at least three things I like, admire, or want to be more like myself about the person I am meeting for the first time. I try to do this before we even make eye contact.
I encourage others to try this. It has led to some amazing and beautiful interactions. Even if you go out on a limb and think something positive that might not be true, you can usually find evidence for it almost immediately.
I see it as a practical application of the Robert Anton Wilson related idea of "what the thinker thinks, the prover proves."
This verse refers to a common threat in the old world. Certain religions contemporaneous with these early writings advocated having orgies that culminated with the burning of some of the participant's children. Others would use dog pits or bear pits instead of fire. Essentially the orgies were a religious observance, and the children were killed at the culmination of days of religious observances. The sights and sounds of the burning children were reported to increase the ecstatic frenzy of the participants to incredible levels.
...where the biggest cheering was for building The Wall...
Please forgive my ignornace, but I still haven't had a coherent and rational explanation of what is wrong with defending your country's borders?
Or, said in another way, why is building a wall so wrong?
It's a sexy word and makes me want to rub one out. Probably because I have a fascination with gender politics, dominant and submissive behaviors, as well as a general female worship thing going on (not just sexual mind you, in fact that takes a back seat to other characteristics.)
The problem with people like you who belittle the Constitution as written, and who belittle people who believe that it was intended as written, is that you ignore all of the history that goes with the Constitution.
The problem with people like you who worship the Constitution as written ignore all the history that goes with the Constitution - and make up shit from whole cloth to support your nutjob notions. You're no different from the airheads who believe that Nostrodamus could see the future and constantly 'discover' evidence to support it.
Writing code is a creative process. Obviously creator's attitudes infuse the creations.
Comparison to handwriting is a poor one, if somewhat evocative. It's more like writer's style.
Some creators adopt YAGNI philosophy, writing code that is simple, easy to understand, but doesn't suggest any expansion paths, and can turn to spaghetti if the expansions are managed. Some reinvent every wheel, writing every function themselves, others take the "golden hammer" to the extreme and create a dependency hell, trying to create a small centralized core that does everything using library functions. Some create rigid user interface following optimal use cases (actual or mistakenly imagined), others take customizability to the extreme, making the interface unusable mess until you take half an hour to configure it and remove all the crap you don't need. Some make programs that do only what says on the box and nothing more, others create APIs or operating systems disguised as applications.
Systemd started as a very simple, neat idea:
- create an alternative for initV that parallelizes startup of services;
- to speed up startup more, not to delay startup of services waiting until other services initialized, provide socket management, creating sockets "customer" programs would wait for, then bind them to their standard "providers" once they started up.
- do away with rigid sequence, instead manage startup as a set of dependencies to reach a certain state.
The idea was very sound and nice. Except it didn't end there.
- Some services needed these sockets actually working and not just present. So let's replace the provider and create own replacement as a part of systemd! And screw well established strategy, we're rewriting it our way! Here, take the binary log files!
- Some services didn't really work with the "dependency tree" strategy, since ancient times written as sequences of operations. These couldn't be easily parallelized. So screw your firewall, have ours!
- Some services used alternate communication methods that sockets. Kill them off, replace with systemd functions!
- Some of them would centralize startup of other services as needed. But that's our job! Die, inetd with your easy config!
And even if each "motion" by itself had a valid justification, the replacements offered by systemd are sub-par. Primarily because systemd developers don't believe in simple, straightforward, easy configurations. It's their attitude rubbing off.
A decent system does offer a lot of flexibility, with all kinds of obscure options, but it primarily offers sensible defaults for every obscure option, so you can get your basic work done in 2-3 lines, and if that's not sufficient, you will find what more can and needs to be done, never forcing you to state the obvious. Systemd though doesn't. You need to alliterate every little thing you want it to do, because the defaults just aren't there. And with some of its demands being quite obscure, it's often hard to find *what* the defaults should be. "Why should we make it easy if we can make it hard? If nobody ever has to write all these little details, they'll never know we had to work to implement handling them!"
--You should also look into Antix/MX, it's Debian without systemd.
--I filed a couple of bug reports months ago with Devuan and find it hard to take them seriously, since no one took ownership or even updated the bugs for over a month.
> Interestingly enough I found myself coding
there, no need to elaborate more, you are a nerd
Man, I thought this was a pretty simple concept, obviously I was wrong. My post comes from my experiences biking to work, and then deciding that other things were more important, so I stopped. These are really simple things like picking my kids up from school, or being able to meet at a client's business. Yes, I absolutely could have found other people to handle those things, but it was more important to me to be able to rely upon myself alone in those situations than it was to bike to work.
The point of TFA was that biking lowers stress. I think that accepting stress into your life reduces your ability to bike.
I have biked to work, it was great.
My comments have to do with why I no longer bike to work.
My point (and it's borne out by many of these responses) is that a stress free life allows biking to work, not the other way around. You clearly don't understand what I'm talking about, but that's great for you, enjoy it!
IVF clinics generally extract a few cells from an embryo for testing and sequencing prior to implantation. It's actually easier to do genetic testing in IVF than a normal pregnancy, but genetic testing at an early stage is now standard in the US for pregnancies in women over 35.
Too much of everything is just enough. -- Bob Wier