> the onus is on you to persuade
and I am saying this is false. but it is expected you believe this. the status quo was people believing in a god. now we don't. it is not on us to prove there is not one. it is still on you to prove there is one. just like it is on you to prove an exemption should still be given, or you don't get one anymore.
yes, that is my opinion. this is what we do in comments on a subject matter. state our opinions on it. there is no need to prove to the irs churches should not be taxed. they take tax rules all the time and reexamine them, and drop ones that are no longer appropriate, which is soon coming for churches. as can literally be seen in this article being discussed.
one day, when mars has high energy requirements, it will still be easier to mine on earth and bring uranium to mars. there will never be a time when it is not. not sure what you are not getting here. unless you mean millions of years in the future, when humanity is dead, and mars is terraformed and as friendly an environment to build a mine as earth.
don't be so quick to make up stuff people never said.
ah yes. the tax exception for a church means churches don't pay taxes by default. i like that circular logic. just like women not being able to vote for hundreds of years - they shouldn't vote now.
your claim was that I needed to prove my point that churches should not pay taxes. i said the claim is invalid, because taxes are paid by default, by everyone, unless an exception is granted. so what needs to be proven is why the exception should be granted to churches.
this has nothing to do with separation of church and state. you have profit, or own property - you pay taxes on it. being religious is not a valid argument to pass on city expenses to everyone else on the block.
my position is not a "challenger." rules and laws are not written in stone as the word of god you pretend the bible is. they need to be reexamined frequently, and someone granted a tax exemption needs to prove again why that exception is still valid.
yes, churches not being taxes is a flaw in the tax system, not churches. churches and everyone else can be and do whatever they want to. welcome to the discussion.
umm, no I don't. everyone pays taxes by default. it is you who needs to say something more persuasive than churches should not pay taxes because they are churches.
then they need to close down and move. if i buy a house for 20k and when I retire the property values are sky-high and the property taxes, which pay for things like roads and schools are too much for me to afford, i have to move.
the people giving money to churches to attend that church, should pick up the cost of going to that church. which includes property taxes. if they are not willing to pay for that, it's their problem. excusing churches from these taxes puts the burden for the church not on its members, but on everyone.
let me ask you - that mcdonalds down the street. are it's property taxes paid by you? do you think if they declared themselves the church of fat asses, their property tax should be paid by you, as a county resident? because it would be, like it is for churches. when a portion of land isn't getting tax collected, the cost for the county doesn't go away - they get it from the people paying the taxes.
communities? no. churches are where a group of people from the community meet, that exclude others on the basis of religion. if a bagel shop did that, people would be up in arms. if they want to give away free food, why would getting taxed on profits stop that?
and why in the world would we do that? you don't need a lot of uranium, and there's plenty on earth. yeah, let's get a bunch of equipment to mars and build a mine bumblefuck miles away where we can't even get a little toy car to function without breaking down in several years.
speaking of exciting possibilities: did you know we have the possibility of refining oil into jet fuel, right on an airplane? then we can use that jet fuel directly on the airplane.
and statistically none of what you describe happens, so the only way you're tired of it, is if you make stuff up, or take the .001% of cases and pretend that's all of them.
if you are blocking every road in the middle of the day, that is illegal. we have sidewalks for you. it's not "any order" - you're breaking the law, and are warned not to.
as far as police being wrong with a suspect - that is not for the courts to decide. that is decided immediately. and the procedure for that, is when they think you may be an armed suspect, for you to follow the order to get into a position safe for them, so they can verify your identity. not to keep standing there talking and refusing to lay down and put your hands on your head. because if they do have the correct suspect, he can take out his gun and kill them. if you don't comply, absolutely they force you to, and you are charged with not complying.
and if you look at all of those cases you're raging about, no - the suspects did not comply like they have to by law. yes, there are a dozen cops over the last decade that literally murdered someone, in the whole country. there are 12000 cops in my city alone.
"But the vast majority of police were entirely peaceful. And and even greater number of individual officers have done nothing wrong."
by the way, peaceful to you is not peaceful to me. when I'm driving home from work and literally every road is filled with people on the road, and I am unable to get home till midnight - you are not peaceful, and you are breaking the law. when you refuse to clear the road and let me come home so I can sleep before the next day at work starts, I'm glad to pay for the tear gas and the rubber bullet that hits you in the head. you clearly don't care about my well-being, so I not only don't care about yours - I want physical harm to come to you.
this is why assemblies outside get a permit, and a designated route to follow. so the majority of people, who are not a part of your rage party, can get routed around and live their lives. you choose not to follow the social contract with the rest of society - I see zero issue with police not following the social contract with you. you have escalated the situation, so expect an escalation from the people you're "peacefully" harming - the majority of people.
you sure it's not china? because some wannabe fascists like yourself seem to be taking one sentence of a point and purposefully ignoring the rest, to spread propaganda and anger.
in america, practicing the first amendment does not give you free reign to break other laws. which is why i said the crowd is told to dispurse for breaking the law - such as walking in the middle of the road blocking cars from moving.
you wanting to break laws and make life harder for other people does not make your fake point exist. enjoy your rubber bullet in the eye.
Your claim is made by taking a sentence out of context - context which says the reason they are told to disperse is that they are breaking the law. You made up a strawman, and are highlighting it as incorrect. I never made the claim you are highlighting as incorrect. Only you did. So you could prove it incorrect. Good job, very good argument you had with yourself, and you won it.
FYI, people don't twit in twitter. In real language, we speak in sentences, not a single sentence, to communicate an idea. The narrative doesn't end with the first period.
They were "peaceful" - as in garbage everywhere, and blocking literally every road downtown in the middle of the day as people got off of work. When the cops tried to clear the roads, using megaphones only, the protesters responded by chanting fuck the police. When the police formed a line and walked down the roadway to clear it, hours later, people started throwing shit. Late evening, they lit the parking lot on fire, with regular people's cars. To retaliate to the police trying to clear the road for those cars trying to get out of work and drive home - at like 9pm.
In my opinion, there has been literally no police overreaction to protests so far. Even the old white guy who got pushed. Yes, when you're told to leave, and instead you don't, you get pushed. Maybe if you're old and fragile, and it's dangerous for you to get pushed, you should have left.
This was nothing though. The next days downtown was destroyed. You had dudes running out of a destroyed starbucks with boxes of coffee, chanting nwa. Yes, 99% of the looters in Chicago were black. Just like all the people who killed someone here (about 400 murders per year). The white people defending the rights of black lives were all peaceful, except for making people's lives difficult with garbage and roadblocks.
The next day the girl in the apartment next to mine started dumping out trash out her window on the people looting the stores on the ground floor. She had to move. Her apartment was covered in bullet holes.
No, I'm not a trump voter. not a biden voter. not a bernietard. Just a guy trying to live a difficult life and get through the day, like most people are. Black lives do not matter. No lives matter, or should matter to others. But interfering negatively with people's lives matters, to those people. So I cheer every time the protesters get gassed, or shot in the eye with a rubber bullet. Just like I cheer every time a cop gets shot.
If the large crowd is told to disperse by government agents, you are no longer a peaceful protester. You are free to protest, but you are not free to protest at any location at any time. If once told to move, you do not, you can, and were always able to be removed by use of physical force.
The reason these peaceful crowds are told to disperse, is they are often not peaceful, they leave much damage to regular citizen's and business property behind, and it's not your call whether the crowd poses a danger to my car parked on the street, or my place of work. It's up to the law enforcement assessing risk of the crowd causing damage, and if they think it will, even if they have not, they have to disperse. Like when the crowd starts ignoring the fact that cars drive on the streets trying to get home from work, and starts walking through and blocking traffic. Or even leaving a pile of trash and destroying the lawn of public or private property, which I have to pay to restore with taxes.
Does your peaceful protest stay on the sidewalk? Does it carry its trash to the nearest garbage can instead of dropping it on the street? Does it destroy zero property and wait for the walk sign at intersections? Because if not, the issue is not with the protest. It's with the things you are doing which are not peaceful, to people not part of your peaceful protest.
I was moving apartments during one of these "peaceful" protests in Chicago. At that point, they weren't burning buildings and destroying stores yet. It took me 12 hours to move 2 minivan-loads of stuff. My brother was helping me. When the police tried to get people to clear the roads, the people did not. Instead, they threw a bunch of flamable shit in the parking lot where regular people's cars were, and destroyed those cars. Because the cops tried to clear the road so people, on the last of the month, could move their shit into the new apartment. after working a full day. and having to work the next day. after having 2 hours of sleep.
by the way, when my brother got home, his girlfriend's shitty old car was broken into and needed to be repaired. good thing she was unemployed and couldn't pay for it, otherwise it might have cost $200 instead of the free ducktape + plastic bag combo.
peaceful for you does not mean peaceful for everyone. and the cops, and the feds, are there to make it peaceful for everyone - not just you. when told to disperse, so people like me can simply live our already stressful lives, you refuse to, you are no longer peaceful, and should be thrown into a van and removed. and if that takes tear gas, I'm cool with that, just like you're cool with completely fucking up my life.
let me ask you this: forget protests. regular workday, mid-afternoon. a group of people decide to just start walking in the middle of the road dropping garbage everywhere and won't leave. what do you think should happen to them? nothing? does the group being large make it ok?
a commonly used feature that has been a part of the unix standard since before "bash" only meant to hit something with a heavy object, while linus was getting his diaper changed is not an "obscure feature."
a five year old took his first aware car ride, and at a gas station saw the trunk of the car next to theirs open. he said "seriously, bmw has too many obscure features." after all, a car for him was where you put the baby seat. and why would you put that in a compartment with no windows or air, that's too small to even fit a baby seat.
It's not "preconditions." It's one condition. That the user wants to visit a website that uses the camera. The rest are details of that one condition. He might as well have said things like "turn on phone" "install the firefox app" "short-press the firefox icon" (to launch it).
by replacing a cable instead of taking apart your iphone and soldering the chip in the phone when an electrical spike comes through from your open contact getting water on it. but you're asking about throughput. the reason active cables exist is because the amount of interference in a cable varies - that little sheath of tin foil in a lightning cable does almost nothing. you need an axial cable for that - which is what ethernet uses for passive direct connection. it's as thick as the coax cable for your tv antenna. your idea I guess is to plug in that thick non-bendable cable into your phone? or is it to put that chip into every usb-A power source in the world? or is it to only use approved apple usb power supplies - instead of the millions of plugs out there at airports, hotels, laptops, existing ac/dc converters from hundreds of vendors? so which of these is your plan instead of the chip in the cable?
I know, I know, usb cables don't need a chip inside, why does lightning. because usb cables are a useless random mess. lightning cables are not - they run at the guaranteed speed, they charge at the guaranteed watts, and they have no issues with shorts despite having contacts exposed and reversible, unlike usb. and usb-C? well, there are active cables available for that, which tackle the issues described with a chip in the cable. just like lightning does.
there is no such thing as 40G ethernet. you can see this easier with optical - there are literally 4 cables inside the one thick cable. you're talking about quad ports - 4x 10G connections in one wide QSFP. in fact, all a breakout cable does is take the 4 wires in that 40G cable, and unwraps them. Ethernet currently goes to SFP28, which is a 25G connection. fibre channel (as in SAN, not LAN) in theory currently goes to 128G, and in practice you can buy buy hardware that goes to 64G. FC cannot run over copper.
Second, yes, some does require active cables with DAC. which does not stand for "cable" like the other comment says. DAC is direct attach copper (as opposed to optical). Without an active cable you're limited to 5 meters, although you can risk it and get a 7 meter passive cable. usually, 7m is already active, and 10m+ is guaranteed to be active. The reason you can even do 10G over copper is because it's cat6. Have you seen that cable? It's twinax - more like the cable from your TV antenna. That's not viable for a phone.
What you are talking about is 10G base-T. That does not need active cabling. but again, you can't compare that to a tiny thin lightning cable.
yes, that is my opinion. this is what we do in comments on a subject matter. state our opinions on it. there is no need to prove to the irs churches should not be taxed. they take tax rules all the time and reexamine them, and drop ones that are no longer appropriate, which is soon coming for churches. as can literally be seen in this article being discussed.