Dude, that's fantastic. I'd love to put one on my macbook over the apple logo.
Something Random
- Thread starter ddrueding
- Start date
Dude, that's fantastic. I'd love to put one on my macbook over the apple logo.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
That's my plan also.
ddrueding
Fixture
Reason #97,834,565 to not have people flying planes.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Indiana is not a good place to live. I'm relatively certain the current governor, in spite of signing the "Indiana is just peachy with bigotry" bill, will be re-elected.
I really do need to move someplace else.
I spent a while today looking at plans for Tiny Houses. I think I'd be perfectly fine living in about 350 square feet, though I suspect my demand for electricity runs counter to a lot of the building practices for such a dwelling. I like the idea of a house I could hitch to a truck and move elsewhere.
I really do need to move someplace else.
I spent a while today looking at plans for Tiny Houses. I think I'd be perfectly fine living in about 350 square feet, though I suspect my demand for electricity runs counter to a lot of the building practices for such a dwelling. I like the idea of a house I could hitch to a truck and move elsewhere.
ddrueding
Fixture
My current plans for our next house (when the kid moves out) is just under 1,000 square feet without any compromises to quality of life. Of course, that doesn't include the 1,500 sq.ft. for garage/shop/off-grid utilities, but that is low-cost space.
^^^Merc's post above^^^ I've always wanted to have a truck/camper shell and just live/visit all the national parks/recreation areas one by one. And when I was done, I'd be ready to start over.
Of course you have to be independently wealthy to do that.
So yeah, the tiny, movable house appeals to me as well.
Of course you have to be independently wealthy to do that.
So yeah, the tiny, movable house appeals to me as well.
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
You wouldn't have enough space for all you computer gears and you would have to move South because this tiny thing would certainly be hard to heat during Winter in any place where there's a Winter worth calling a Winter. I'm not sure you would appreciate the sanitary compromises regarding the toilet either and water supply in general for all common uses (shower, laundry, etc) must be a mess too.
You're not in your late twenties, living in a hippie couple. Don't put yourself in misery for a miscalculated, momentary lapse of judgement.
Move if you must, close to the coast would be better for you IMO because people living there (both ways) are closer to your ideology than those living in the Red States. Altough you could try Colorado. Avoid the South East and its hurricanes, blatant poverty and leniant gun laws.
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
There's a "blue state" about 30 miles from Merc.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
I'm thinking west coast or Tennessee, where my parents are. I'd probably do better generally on the West Coast.
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
You don't look very "Nashville" to me. Do you prefer tornadoes and "Country" or earthquakes and money?
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Knoxville is on the other side of the state. Kinda like how San Francisco and Sacramento are not that far apart but couldn't be more different.
ddrueding
Fixture
Merc could handle central CA well enough, but Portland/Seattle might be better.
ddrueding
Fixture
A look at proper ceiling insulation for central CA. 1/2" sheetrock, 3" of spray foam adhered directly to the rock/joists/cans/ducts, topped by 9" of fiberglass. The foam added to the rigidity enough to provide significant soundproofing as well.
Stereodude
Not really a
I'd suggest Canada since there's a nearly identical Federal law that has been on the books since 1993 when it was signed into law by Bill Clinton.
Federal:
Indiana:
Stereodude
Not really a
I'd suggest Canada since there's a nearly identical Federal law that has been on the books since 1993 when it was signed into law by Bill Clinton.
Federal:
Indiana:
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
The Indiana law is explicitly different from other laws because it includes language overriding local statues. Communities like South Bend and Indianapolis that already included sexual preference as a protected class just had their laws invalidated. Those in smaller communities may now find that their local grocery or pharmacy will not allow them to partake of services.
Now, as to whether I would prefer to live in Canada or some other member of the Commonwealth: Yes. That would also be lovely.
Now, as to whether I would prefer to live in Canada or some other member of the Commonwealth: Yes. That would also be lovely.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
... and I just spoke to someone on my office line whose name showed up on caller ID as "LEGAL ANAL" which is of course extra hilarious for reasons that we can explain to sedrosken when he's a little bit older.
Stereodude
Not really a
In other news that's how state laws work.
And they can still sue and may win. The law isn't an automatic get out of trouble card. The federal version has been tested in court and the person refusing services doesn't win all the time.
So basically if the city wants they can put up signs that Chinese cannot buy anything due to Buddhism? Maybe the Americans can introduce an Apartheid system.
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
Thinking about the best place for Merc : Las Vegas. Highest population ratio of strippers in the U.S. He would have quite a social life ;-)
Yes, and a lot of other things. Splendid idea!
Stereodude
Not really a
Uh, what? What sort of hypothetical is that? The law is about the state taking action against individuals which isn't even close to your hypothetical.So basically if the city wants they can put up signs that Chinese cannot buy anything due to Buddhism? Maybe the Americans can introduce an Apartheid system.
You're aware of the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision from last year right? The Supreme Court ruled that Federal Gov't can't force Hobby Lobby to provide methods of birth control that conflict with their deeply held religious beliefs. That's precisely what the Indiana, Federal, and the other 20 states who have near identical laws are all about. They're intended to prevent the gov't (whether state, local, or federal) from forcing businesses or people to do things that violate their religious beliefs.
Should the gov't be able to force a Muslim grocery store owner to sell someone pork because they want it and by not selling it the owner is discriminating against them? Why?
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
It's a matter of specific wording. The party of small government has specifically and deliberately remove rights in places where they had already been granted. This is particularly troubling as religion really is a matter of open interpretation and self-identification.
And yes, Muslim taxi drivers should have to transport dogs if their passengers need them to do so and pharmacists should supply legal medication ordered by a physician. If your religion specifically precludes certain activities, either don't take a job that might ask you to do those things or at the very least don't complain when someone asks that you do them. Changing jobs and changing religions are both exercises of free will.
Stereodude
Not really a
Right, religious people shouldn't be bakers or photographers lest they potentially run afoul of the the militant gay community who want to use the gov't to bully those who don't approve of their personal decisions by claiming discrimination.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
If your religion is so easily transgressed by interacting with the secular society, yes.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
If your religion is so easily transgressed by interacting with the secular society, yes.
Stereodude
Not really a
Right "interacting"... I think what you meant to say is attempted forced endorsement of.
You apparently think the gov't should step in and force churches to marry gay people in their facility (an act that they believe is wrong), force a wedding photographer to shoot a gay wedding (an event that he/she believes is wrong), etc... That's definitely freedom of religion.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Gay people can be married by civil authority or in churches with tolerant views of human relationships. What happens in a church is the purview of its faith. What happens in secular life, outside of the church, is a matter of law. These are distinct issues.
If a person of faith feels that their faith is being violated with some interaction with the secular world, the burden should be on that person to withdraw to the degree that will allow them to function, not on the general public to conform to their self-imposed limitations. There are Amish communities, Kibbutzes in Israel and compounds in northern Utah ready made for those sorts of people.
If a person of faith feels that their faith is being violated with some interaction with the secular world, the burden should be on that person to withdraw to the degree that will allow them to function, not on the general public to conform to their self-imposed limitations. There are Amish communities, Kibbutzes in Israel and compounds in northern Utah ready made for those sorts of people.
ddrueding
Fixture
Religion as a whole puts such a burden on society, causing people to act outside their best interest and change their lives based on silly superstitions. Shame, really.
Howell
Storage? I am Storage!
How small does the group of religious people who would object need to be to merit protection as a minority?
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Who cares? No one is saying that religious people cannot observe their faith in their home or in their church. The issue here is that religious people are demanding that the secular world conform to their expectations, which is particularly ironic given the frequency with which religious beliefs stand at odds with one another.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Also, as further rejoinder to Stereodude: The wording of the law signed by President Clinton is such that it only applies to government agencies and employees (e.g. the Federal Government, as an employer, will not force an adherent of Islam go out and inspect hog farms or punish Native American civil servants for smoking peyote in tribal ceremonies), whereas the Indiana law codifies the ability of any individual to blamelessly discriminate, so long as it is done on religious grounds.
I'd say that's monumental distinction.
I'd say that's monumental distinction.
Stereodude
Not really a
That's precisely what's not happening. You're living in a made up fantasy world. No one is demanding the secular world conform to their expectations (well except maybe those who want to impose Sharia law on everyone). These people want the ability to omit themselves from being forced to participate in or condone their behavior that they believe is a sin. There are some militant elements to the gay community who intentionally target people and organizations who are not accepting of their lifestyle to bully them and intimidate others rather than simply going to a baker, photographer, or whatever who will provide them the services they want. They claim discrimination and sick the state, local, or federal gov't on those people or organizations and end up putting the people out of business and possibly bankrupting them. This law and the others just like it in other states and the federal one offers the possibility (not a guarantee) of recourse against the discrimination claims.
Your suggesting that they not be allowed to observe their faith outside their home or church. I'm sorry, but the Constitution doesn't guarantee the Citizenry freedom from religion (as in religious influence).
Stereodude
Not really a
That's so not what the law does. It offers the possibility of recourse against discrimination claims brought by the state or local gov't if the action was taken on religious grounds.
By your logic allowing for a self defense claim in a criminal proceeding is codifying the ability of any individual to go out and murder whoever they want.
Howell
Storage? I am Storage!
Although many religious people leave their religion in the church when they leave the building, many have ingrained it into their way of life.
The argument for asking the majority to allow freedom to the minority goes back to the runAlthough many religious people leave their religion in the church when they leave the building, many have ingrained it into their way of life and can't simply leave it at home.
The argument for asking the majority to allow freedom to the minority goes back to the beginning of the country. ning of the country.
The argument for asking the majority to allow freedom to the minority goes back to the runAlthough many religious people leave their religion in the church when they leave the building, many have ingrained it into their way of life and can't simply leave it at home.
The argument for asking the majority to allow freedom to the minority goes back to the beginning of the country. ning of the country.
sedrosken
Florida Man
Today was a good day. Picked up a Dell Studio 540 for free without a hard drive. Works great.
It's got a Core 2 Quad Q9400 @ 2.66GHz, 6GB DDR2-800 RAM, and a discrete Radeon HD 3650 or so. The grep output for lspci wasn't particularly specific, narrowing it down to anything from an HD 3650 to an HD 4580. I think I'm gonna call off the FX build, because this just gave me at least a stopgap measure for me to be able to save some more.
It's got a Core 2 Quad Q9400 @ 2.66GHz, 6GB DDR2-800 RAM, and a discrete Radeon HD 3650 or so. The grep output for lspci wasn't particularly specific, narrowing it down to anything from an HD 3650 to an HD 4580. I think I'm gonna call off the FX build, because this just gave me at least a stopgap measure for me to be able to save some more.
Good. I'm sure you can put it to some use.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
No one outside of certain parts of the right wing blogosphere is suggesting Sharia Law is viable in the United States. Even in places with the highest concentrations of Muslims in the USA, like Dearborn, Michigan and St. Paul, Minnesota, the level of traction that idea has is approximately the same as the Christian Identity movement (Stormfront et al). Any suggestion to the contrary is pure fear mongering. Further, Sharia law only applies to Muslims, just as Roman Catholics have their own legal system. These systems exist and are administered entirely lawfully, as they are a matter of faith and do not attempt to supersede secular law.
Over here in actual reality, we have circumstances where pharmacists can refuse to dispense medicine because their religious faith precludes its lawful use by other people who do not follow the same belief systems. They are in effect inflicting their beliefs on others. The law as written in Indiana could take this a step further, creating a situation where a local grocer could refuse to sell food to a patron because they eat shellfish or wear plant and animal-based fabrics at the same time. This is particularly unconscionable because these matters will be based on personal rather than objective standards and may not even have any grounds in the actual religious faith in question. How long until someone tries a line like "I'm a fundamentalist Mormon so I won't offer services to dark-skinned people because they bear the curse of Cain" or the like?
Then they should find lives for themselves that don't involve dealing with all members of the general public. I don't approve of the god you apparently worship or the people you apparently vote for, but I still have to accept that you exist in the world and treat you in a civil manner.
Speaking of, isn't your wife Asian? Are you? Would you be willing to accept the possibility that a business that is in theory open to the general public could object to your patronage because of their strongly held beliefs about whom Korean babes should marry? Religious objections were widely cited for prohibition of Miscegenation at one time.
Demanding equal rights afforded by law is not the same thing as bullying and intimidation. That's not militant behavior. Is it "militant" to demand to ask that law be applied without regard to special qualifiers about one's person? The people asking for a cake or a wedding photographer are not asking for special treatment, only to be dealt with like any other member of the general public. I suspect that if you had to deal with a similar amount of discrimination in your life, you might have a different feeling about whether or not to make an issue of such matters.
There's nothing in the Bible that says Christians should treat nonbelievers differently. Jesus never mentioned homosexuality at all. He hung out with Prostitutes and washed the feet of beggars. He doesn't sound like a guy who would have a problem with Adam and Stephen's names on the same wedding cake.
That's because it is a real form of discrimination that exists. Sexual preference is not a protected class on either the Federal or Indiana State level. People can lose their jobs, be prevented from leasing an apartment or adopting a child, be denied building permits or, at least in Indiana, be prevented from purchasing actual life-sustaining necessities like food because someone else doesn't like their apparent choice in sex holes or favored undergarments. These matters are far more serious than the degree of animosity a photographer might have toward the idea of two people he finds personally unattractive sharing a kiss.
Your right to free religious expression ends when it begins to impact other people, most particularly those who do not happen to share the same beliefs as you and even moreso when you claim to make yourself available to the general public.