Slashdot Mirror

Government propaganda is now legal in the US thanks to the lack of a Smith–Mundt Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...–Mundt_Act to ensure US government propaganda is for international use only.
Other nations have vast teams of paid mil, gov staff, AC's and sock puppet accounts.
British army creates team of Facebook warriors (31 Jan 2015)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk...

https://www.theguardian.com/us...

While Microsoft's PR group would agree with what you said, if you look at most other PC OS's it doesn't work this way. Over on Apple in Mac OS X, they separate their security updates out from their other patches (and they don't have back ported data monitoring patches from Windows 10 in there). Over in OS X there isn't data monitoring to begin with. And the stuff that goes up to the cloud can be turned off with 2 checkboxes. Over in Linux you can do whatever you want.

The other side of this is that Microsoft will still have to test each fix individually prior to them going into a monthly lump - this is why they got rid of the service pack because of the double testing - in the end there will be little reduction in testing costs.

This is all about turning personal PC's into Microsoft's data monitoring tool which is worth alot of money to Microsoft for each personal PC every year - giving them control over your PC's data like an Android smartphone. As someone else noted the user data monitoring in Windows 10 and backported to Windows 7 & 8 in prior hotfixes (which could be avoided) is worth alot of money every year and after the October takeover Microsoft is gradually going to roll in the old hotfixes into the monthly updates over time and eliminate them. Microsoft's recent history requires no paranoia at all - they actively choose this for their customers:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

Who robs banks anymore? The take is comparatively low, the risk of capture extremely high and prison sentences lengthy.

It's a crime that is rapidly dying out,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

https://www.theguardian.com/ed...

I'm wonder if these employees only being paid for 30 hours will only be expected to put in 60 hours?

There are reasons IT is often a salaried position. These reasons are called labor laws. In case people don't know, the hourly rate is actually pretty low for IT professionals after one factors in unaccounted for time.

Death marches are the norm in IT from help-desk support to video game testers. Nothing else can be expected from a whole section of Industry managed by people who put in random deadline dates without even guessing how long something should take. IT planning and scheduling is slightly worse than Hollywood and on part with consumer sales organized around fictional holidays.

If Amazon is hiring part-time workers the may find very quickly that laws have a very clear interpretation about things like on-call, per-deim, travel reimbursement and other concepts. Laws that were paid for by the labor unions of last century before they imploded with corruption.

But this is the twenty-first century. Want slaves but pesky morals and laws get in your way? Just call them 'Unpaid Interns.' Between making copies and running for coffee make them write reports about how wonderful it was. They get Real World Experience of doing stuff for no money that you somehow cannot get in school.

Seriously: spend less time in the seat crushed by anxiety and red tape. Then you'll get more stuff done. The less you work on average the more productive your society is. There have been studies on this.

And how many people has it silenced who are against terrorism?

I'd be more impressed if they didn't seem to have a little club that used a small cabal to decide who should be banned and who not... real trolls roam free on Twitter while people deviating from Group-Think are banned. It makes me question if the numbers they give are even real or just for show.

The claim appears to be somewhat more widespread.

When they discovered that it applied not only to themselves, but to people who disagreed with them?

Exactly, see here the mouthpiece of the left supporting the bill:

https://www.theguardian.com/co...

Oh wait, they're condemning it. So do you want to change your views on "the left" or are you going to find some way that "doesn't count"?

Ironically, it's people like you who want an end to freedom of speech. You want people to stop criticising you and banning people you like from their privately owned venues. You want a lesser kind of freedom of speech where there are no consequences to anything you say.

Also, just because you can't use google properly, doesn't mean that those left wing loonies at the Guardian don't oppose the thought police: https://www.theguardian.com/co...

I'm shocked that anyone would think free speech is a good idea!

It isn't. It's a terribly dangerous idea. But then so is the use of force, even lethal force. Yet both are ultimately necessary in their ways.

All speech should be moderated by a team of SJWs to suppress any opposing opinions!

See, now if you truly had free speech, nobody would ever be able to question you on this speech, because that would be impairing your free speech.

Nobody could ever point out to you that the SJW bogeyman was nothing more than a caricature meant to silence dissent and disagreement itself, nobody could have challenge you on your own representations.

All adult material must be censored because "think of the children"! This free speech nonsense must end!

And that example is actually about the Moral Majority side of things, not the dreaded SJW. At least be correct in your attributions.

The SJW who are against adult material are against the exploitation of individuals in the adult entertainment industry, a similar, but different priority.

Twitter should look to the UK, where we have a genuine Thought Police backed by an army of volunteer SJWs:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3739348/Scotland-Yard-ploughs-2million-new-thought-police-unit-snoop-web-users-hunt-trolls.html

I was also going to link a liberal source for this, but the Guardian didn't appear to cover the news and the Independent seems to have removed their rather critical article after realising the liked the idea of a leftist Thought Police:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/scotland-yard-thought-police-online-hate-crime-social-media-trolling-abuse-racism-post-brexit-racism-a7189971.html

Huh, apparently you aren't entirely factual in your representations.

The Guardian also has other articles on the subject. But perhaps you don't want to face them?

There are real questions. Don't blind yourself to it.

Can I ask the people on the left, when did the left start to view free speech as being a bad thing? Do people on the left agree with the current moves towards oppressive censorship or is this simply the ruling class acting on their own?

People on the left have noticed that the right has resorted to less than honest discussion, and challenge them on that, and you don't realize it, do you?

The worst evils are always perpetuated when nobody dares to say "Stop, you shouldn't do that, it's wrong" and while it may seem that that is impairing freedom on the surface, if you don't realize that the actions being stopped are themselves the truth threat to freedom, maybe you need to think a little harder.

I'm sure it's comforting to you, that you think the only reasons for censorship is to suppress valid dissent, that the only people calling for any kind of action are the ones who are the enemies of liberty, but in reality, well, you can see a lot of different things going on, and some of it is very subtle, even misleading on appearances.

I'm shocked that anyone would think free speech is a good idea!

It isn't. It's a terribly dangerous idea. But then so is the use of force, even lethal force. Yet both are ultimately necessary in their ways.

All speech should be moderated by a team of SJWs to suppress any opposing opinions!

See, now if you truly had free speech, nobody would ever be able to question you on this speech, because that would be impairing your free speech.

Nobody could ever point out to you that the SJW bogeyman was nothing more than a caricature meant to silence dissent and disagreement itself, nobody could have challenge you on your own representations.

All adult material must be censored because "think of the children"! This free speech nonsense must end!

And that example is actually about the Moral Majority side of things, not the dreaded SJW. At least be correct in your attributions.

The SJW who are against adult material are against the exploitation of individuals in the adult entertainment industry, a similar, but different priority.

Twitter should look to the UK, where we have a genuine Thought Police backed by an army of volunteer SJWs:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3739348/Scotland-Yard-ploughs-2million-new-thought-police-unit-snoop-web-users-hunt-trolls.html

I was also going to link a liberal source for this, but the Guardian didn't appear to cover the news and the Independent seems to have removed their rather critical article after realising the liked the idea of a leftist Thought Police:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/scotland-yard-thought-police-online-hate-crime-social-media-trolling-abuse-racism-post-brexit-racism-a7189971.html

Huh, apparently you aren't entirely factual in your representations.

The Guardian also has other articles on the subject. But perhaps you don't want to face them?

There are real questions. Don't blind yourself to it.

Can I ask the people on the left, when did the left start to view free speech as being a bad thing? Do people on the left agree with the current moves towards oppressive censorship or is this simply the ruling class acting on their own?

People on the left have noticed that the right has resorted to less than honest discussion, and challenge them on that, and you don't realize it, do you?

The worst evils are always perpetuated when nobody dares to say "Stop, you shouldn't do that, it's wrong" and while it may seem that that is impairing freedom on the surface, if you don't realize that the actions being stopped are themselves the truth threat to freedom, maybe you need to think a little harder.

I'm sure it's comforting to you, that you think the only reasons for censorship is to suppress valid dissent, that the only people calling for any kind of action are the ones who are the enemies of liberty, but in reality, well, you can see a lot of different things going on, and some of it is very subtle, even misleading on appearances.

I'm shocked that anyone would think free speech is a good idea!

It isn't. It's a terribly dangerous idea. But then so is the use of force, even lethal force. Yet both are ultimately necessary in their ways.

All speech should be moderated by a team of SJWs to suppress any opposing opinions!

See, now if you truly had free speech, nobody would ever be able to question you on this speech, because that would be impairing your free speech.

Nobody could ever point out to you that the SJW bogeyman was nothing more than a caricature meant to silence dissent and disagreement itself, nobody could have challenge you on your own representations.

All adult material must be censored because "think of the children"! This free speech nonsense must end!

And that example is actually about the Moral Majority side of things, not the dreaded SJW. At least be correct in your attributions.

The SJW who are against adult material are against the exploitation of individuals in the adult entertainment industry, a similar, but different priority.

Twitter should look to the UK, where we have a genuine Thought Police backed by an army of volunteer SJWs:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3739348/Scotland-Yard-ploughs-2million-new-thought-police-unit-snoop-web-users-hunt-trolls.html

I was also going to link a liberal source for this, but the Guardian didn't appear to cover the news and the Independent seems to have removed their rather critical article after realising the liked the idea of a leftist Thought Police:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/scotland-yard-thought-police-online-hate-crime-social-media-trolling-abuse-racism-post-brexit-racism-a7189971.html

Huh, apparently you aren't entirely factual in your representations.

The Guardian also has other articles on the subject. But perhaps you don't want to face them?

There are real questions. Don't blind yourself to it.

Can I ask the people on the left, when did the left start to view free speech as being a bad thing? Do people on the left agree with the current moves towards oppressive censorship or is this simply the ruling class acting on their own?

People on the left have noticed that the right has resorted to less than honest discussion, and challenge them on that, and you don't realize it, do you?

The worst evils are always perpetuated when nobody dares to say "Stop, you shouldn't do that, it's wrong" and while it may seem that that is impairing freedom on the surface, if you don't realize that the actions being stopped are themselves the truth threat to freedom, maybe you need to think a little harder.

I'm sure it's comforting to you, that you think the only reasons for censorship is to suppress valid dissent, that the only people calling for any kind of action are the ones who are the enemies of liberty, but in reality, well, you can see a lot of different things going on, and some of it is very subtle, even misleading on appearances.

It looks like you're trying to push guns are teh evil.

All manner of antique objects, like bagpipes, are impacted.

Given the French and German success with their own advance maths, domestic network security and crypto would it not be better to consult nations with a global track record in network access that remains hidden?
NSA surveillance: Merkel's phone may have been monitored 'for over 10 years' (Sunday 27 October 2013)
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
If the best in Germany cant even keep one phone safe, the only phone they really had to keep safe, something is very lacking.
France had its entire diplomatic communications network full reconstructed by the US and UK into the 1950's after failing to protect its FMT diplomatic code and later code use.
France in the NSA's crosshair : phone networks under surveillance (21.10.2013)
http://www.lemonde.fr/technolo...
e.g. under DRTBOX and WHITEBOX

You drinking the lie that somehow the Republican party is represented by such tripe and that they cannot help it because they are somehow less intelligent than you.

Actually, I'm much more of an observer. You're just engendering the Koolaid pejoratives because I'm making you uncomfortable.

Out of 17 Presidential candidates in the 2016 race, Trump received 13,300,472 votes in the primary voting, His closest competitor was Ted Cruz, with 7,637,262 votes. This was a record number of votes, Surpassing both Romney and Bush 2.

Out of the 1,237 delegates needed to win, and 2,472 delegates total trump had a total of 1543, an overwhelming majority.

Out of the 50 states plus D of C there were only 12 that Trump did not win.

That is not just winning - it is overwhelmingly winning, with a record being set in the process.

Now since here we are in 2016 with conspiracy kooks claiming that we now have 50 people killed by the Clintons, allow us to touch on conspiracy, being germane to the topic.

Trump is a birther., and still claims it: http://www.politico.com/story/...

Trump has "suggested" that Hillary had Vincent Foster killed. https://www.theguardian.com/us...

Obama is a muslim

Rafael Cruz was involved in the JFK assassination,

He watched as Muslims celebrated in New Jesey when 9-11 happened.

He has literally dozens of conspiracy theories, and I "heard people talking" is no excuse. Its his way of saying "Not sayin', just sayin'. Sayin' is sayin', and if you can't say, don't say. He's sayin'

Donald Trump won the primaries overwhelmingly, setting a record in the process, and his campaign appearances have people cheering wildly for him in rapt attention. We can both watch them. Yet he does not represent the thoughts and minds of the party that nominated him to this position?

Well now, that is an interesting position. I'm really enjoyin' the dance here.

This isn't about antitrust.

If Google pays the fine, they admit the Russian court has jurisdiction.
If Google fights the fine in court, they admit the Russian court has jurisdiction.

It's a camel's nose in the jurisdictional tent, since they could just waltz into court, and say "The only reason they have the apps installed is because they want to use the 'Android' trademark; fine: call it 'Robotizirovannyy' or whatever the hell else you want to call it other than the trademark, and you're good to go".

This is about Russia's recent laws on cryptographic communications being required to be able to be eavesdropped upon by the FSB (Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation) and SVR (Foreign Intelligence Service), and about device data being decryptable.

The apps are relevant because the browser includes HTTPS, and GMail, YouTube, and other apps use strong encryption.

They are basically trying to force the strong cryptography "gone", or (minimally) force it "off by default", or (preferably) backdoor the hell out of it.

There's a reason that Google closed down the Chrome/ChromeOS group in Moscow on 14 Dec 2014.

https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

If technology in school is so great how come the employees of companies such as Apple and Google send their children to a Waldorf School in which they don't use technology (tablets, computers, etc) for teaching? https://www.theguardian.com/te...

It sounds as if you were able to take the money from all of these "silver bullets" that are supposed to save education and put it towards the best teachers it would go a long way. Then the union would have to let the underperforming teachers be replaced. (God forbid someone bad at their job should lose it!) And the administration should be cut back so that the teachers can focus on the teaching.

What are the options? A mandated "gov inside" backdoor on every phone able to be used to connect to any US network?
A state and federal designed in PRISM like NSA and GCHQ decryption network set into every hardware company with access by any state task force with federal funding by default?
Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages (12 July 2013)
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
"Material collected through Prism is routinely shared with the FBI and CIA, with one NSA document describing the program as a "team sport"."

Re "That backdoor game is an odd one: The only winning move is not to play it." What would a backdoor given to the gov look like?
Greek wiretapping case 2004–05 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...–05
"involved the illegal tapping of more than 100 mobile phones" ... "belonging mostly to members of the Greek government and top-ranking civil servants"
SISMI-Telecom scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"enter the Telecom system and implement wiretaps without leaving a trace" ... "including politicians, magistrates, football players and referees had been placed under illegal surveillance""
Once any gov keys get copied, kept by, sold, offered to the media by ex staff, former staff, anyone can have access or even send data, new upgrades back down to any device :)

Purely to put up roadblocks against competition from foreign diesel passenger car makers in order to favor domestic makers of gasoline engines.

Yep. Nothing to do with smog and proposals for center city bans on diesel vehicles (never mind the alternating day travel schemes already being imposed). European smog problems are clearly rumors. The London ULEZ is simply a scheme by U.S. engine manufacturers to take over the European market.

No technical reason at all. You hear politicians discussing making London and Paris-type proposals for LA, SF, NYC, Boston, and Chicago all the freaking time... right?

Try again.

Purely to put up roadblocks against competition from foreign diesel passenger car makers in order to favor domestic makers of gasoline engines.

Yep. Nothing to do with smog and proposals for center city bans on diesel vehicles (never mind the alternating day travel schemes already being imposed). European smog problems are clearly rumors. The London ULEZ is simply a scheme by U.S. engine manufacturers to take over the European market.

No technical reason at all. You hear politicians discussing making London and Paris-type proposals for LA, SF, NYC, Boston, and Chicago all the freaking time... right?

Try again.

The allowed NOx levels being much lower in the US than most other countries makes an argument for the EPA regulations being unreasonable

The pre-Euro 6 (2014) regulations allowing NOx levels for compression engines (i.e., diesel) three times higher than those for spark-ignition engines (i.e., petrol) makes an argument for the European regulations being drafted to permit diesel engines lacking NOx controls regardless of the smog issue. Their own governments say so.

The Euro 6 regulations that came into effect in the 2015 model year (late 2014) finally push NOx limits down to 0.08 g/km (diesel) vs. 0.06 g/km (petrol), approximating parity for the first time. Meanwhile, the US Tier 2 standard is a fleet average of 0.07 g/mi (~0.043 g/km) for both engine types.

So, if the US regulations were devised to protect manufacturers of gasoline engines, then why are the Euro regulations clamping down from 0.50 g/km to only slightly more than double the US limits now? Why are spark-ignition engines even closer to the US limits now? What is your basis for levels being "unreasonable" besides the apparent fact that you view the European regulations as being infallible, even though they themselves do not.

The smog in European cities more than makes an argument that the Euro regulations are unreasonable, not the other way around.

The allowed NOx levels being much lower in the US than most other countries makes an argument for the EPA regulations being unreasonable

The pre-Euro 6 (2014) regulations allowing NOx levels for compression engines (i.e., diesel) three times higher than those for spark-ignition engines (i.e., petrol) makes an argument for the European regulations being drafted to permit diesel engines lacking NOx controls regardless of the smog issue. Their own governments say so.

The Euro 6 regulations that came into effect in the 2015 model year (late 2014) finally push NOx limits down to 0.08 g/km (diesel) vs. 0.06 g/km (petrol), approximating parity for the first time. Meanwhile, the US Tier 2 standard is a fleet average of 0.07 g/mi (~0.043 g/km) for both engine types.

So, if the US regulations were devised to protect manufacturers of gasoline engines, then why are the Euro regulations clamping down from 0.50 g/km to only slightly more than double the US limits now? Why are spark-ignition engines even closer to the US limits now? What is your basis for levels being "unreasonable" besides the apparent fact that you view the European regulations as being infallible, even though they themselves do not.

The smog in European cities more than makes an argument that the Euro regulations are unreasonable, not the other way around.

Many? You must have about a thousand links to back that up then?

https://www.theguardian.com/us...

What really gets me is this link - https://nypost.com/2015/10/11/...

So-called "experts" are telling us that it is reasonable that children with toys are shot and killed. I insist that it is NOT reasonable for children with toys to be killed.

How 'bout that latest incident, in which a mentally handicapped boy was holding a TOY TRUCK, the officer shot at him, and instead hit the boy's caretaker/guardian/counselor?

Yeah, stupid kids get killed all the time, but it is unacceptable that we allow idiot cops to do the killing.

Today of course, any male adult is considered bad to be around.

I held back from mentioning this... the part how you can be a 7 year old and just go spend an afternoon with some adult male without it being any sort of problem whatsoever. These days it is so very hard to believe.

As an adult male who now tinkers on stuff in the garage, I make it a point to shut the door to avoid any sort of 'trouble'.

It was a different day and age. In truth, there are almost certainly the same percentage of males who children shouldn't be around. Which is to say very few.

Unfortunately, over time, the marginalizing of adult males, by way of reporting every incident in a country of hundreds of millions as if it was happening in our own town, the vested interest of well meaning parents trying to protect their children from anything bad in their lives at all, and the vested interest of a subset of humanity that simply hates men, it crept up on us.

And now it has gone batshit crazy. Within another Slashdot story we are hearing about how millennials are not engaging with each other. Some folks have tried to make it about money, but in fact, at least in a heterosexual context, relations have become a scary situation for the males.

And even if males resign themselves to being sperm donors for female same sex couples who want children, it doesn't end: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/23/... Make a donation, and you can end up on the hook for it.

http://www.mrcustodycoach.com/...

https://www.theguardian.com/mo...

But I've blathered on enough. It's a pity that what I remember as an enjoyable part of growing up has been so completely anathema in today's world. Not one of these guys was ever remotely interested in a couple of young boys that way. We would have hit the bricks in a second if we sensed that. Today? Most all normal males simply avoid young people altogether.

Of course please don't conflate whether detecting radio receivers is possible, with the fiscal and politial implications of actually driving around and trying to detect unlicensed TVs. Here are some comments and in my opinion, the "TV Detection Van" story is an urban legend being resurrected in today's age to maintain compliance with the BBC tax. It would be easier to just drop the charade and tax everyone to pay for the BBC. Fine, if you want them to be 100% independent, well there must already be a law that allows them to charge the TV license fee, so why not alter that to allow them to charge everyone in the country? Be much easier.

I would have thought that Brazil would be fed of with US spies after Snowden's leak showed US spied on Brazil president Roussef...

http://akademie.dw.de/digitals...

You may be right.

https://www.theguardian.com/te...

Or not

http://www.pcworld.com/article...

or ... you can see for yourself

https://panopticlick.eff.org/

Credit card: only as long as it is visa card.

statistically speaking white people are more likely to get killed then black

http://www.nber.org/papers/w22...

Statistically unarmed, complying Black people are about 5 times more likely to be killed by a cop than a white person.

https://www.theguardian.com/us...

Wow, both of those pieces of information could be useful in trying to find a solution to our current issues. Let me just check the citations ... oh.

Learn to use a fucking search engine.

every couple of months atm.

last one was in may iirc.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk...

Is that why you have people calling 999 to report that their cat has been playing with string for over two hours straight, or that two actors were fighting on a television show?

And don't get me started on Brexit...

If it turns out Mozilla will be nefarious about it, then you can always recompile Firefox from source with the mandatory signing thing cut out, or go to some fork.

While literally true, that's hardly an honest assessment. It's impractical for all but 0.01% of the userbase. The rest are just stuck with whatever mozilla decides.

Chances are, whatever unintended side-effects come about from this lock-down will only people in corner-cases, at least only at first. Remember the first time Amazon revoked a book on the kindle? It was only people who had an edition of Orwell's 1984. Hardly widespread, but it still sucked for those people though seeing as how it not only took the book but any annotations they might have written, like for english class.

The poor people of Rio are paying for those games with their health and their lives. Sociopath is too strong a word but be honest: how they suffer doesn't bother you or anyone else living it up at the Olympic party at public expense. http://money.cnn.com/gallery/n... http://www.businessinsider.com... https://www.theguardian.com/sp... http://www.theatlantic.com/bus... http://www.economist.com/blogs...

The word he is looking for is Narcissism: the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one's own attributes. Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a long term pattern of abnormal behavior characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance, an excessive need for admiration, and a lack of understanding of others' feelings.

In 2014 EP election, party groups declared their candidates for Commission Presidents. Juncker was EPP candidate, Martin Schulz was PES candidate and Guy Verhofstadt was ALDE candidate. EPP won the election, so Juncker was nominated by EC and elected by EP.

Parliament rubber stamped the council nomination but where did the public vote for him? You think the public in Northern Europe would have considered the guy electable? You have obviously forgotten that few in the EU wanted Juncker and if you think European politicians consider Junckers "election" legitimate then consider...

On Tuesday evening, EU heads of state and government come together for what could be their last supper together with Cameron. On the following morning, they make clear to Juncker that they will be taking the lead in the exit negotiations with Britain. "But that is the Commission's responsibility," Juncker protests. "Jean-Claude, we have been elected, you haven't been," is the rejoinder from several prime ministers and heads of state.

Not in codecision procedure, which is used in most areas since the Lisbon Treaty.

My reading (and it has been some time) was simply that the commission can overrule parliament and that the council of ministers can overrule the commission.

That is not true. EP can dismiss the commission by two-thirds majority vote of no-confidence. See article 234 of the Lisbon Treaty.

Also note that in the past, EP was able to force resignation of Santer commission even without legal right to for that.

I was going from memory but am prepared to split the difference on this. Rather than a simple majority vote we have an arbitrary 75%, should parliament ever use a power that was not granted with a view to ever being exercised.

Sure, it's possible to apply pressure for a political resignation.... until it is not. Were such tactics always reliable, Juncker would never had landed the job to begin with.

Porn can cause problems for many people. The root causes, however, are not with porn. One is failure to develop sensible disciplined habits around viewing it, and just as failing to develop sensible disciplined habits around driving makes driving a liability, and likewise with consumption of alcohol, and many other things. Second is trying to live a life where, in trying to meet the expectations of others, you end up effectively in a silent war with a caged and frustrated sex drive in a world saturated with beautiful young potential mates (of either gender). In this state, as soon as your brain senses an outlet, it is akin to desperation for a drink of water, or to take a pee. If you give in, and many will give in, (and many who do no will develop mental health problems due to the levels of stress, anxiety and confusion involved), your brain will remember the path to what it was desperate for (whether food, drugs, porn, sex, or whatever) as if it is a life-saving escape route. Just as with breaking under torture, once you give in once, your brain will be rewired and it will be almost impossible to hold out again. But humans do not, and cannot have, in general, anything like the infinite resolve and discipline required for the unicorn powered dream of people marrying in strictly monogamous heterosexual marriages and not having or desiring sex in any other circumstances. In the modern world, people must have safe effective and readily available outlets for sexual drives which would otherwise cause problems. Restraint is akin to holding off to go to the bathroom: an important short-term solution which in the case of toilet training everybody has learned, but holding off from taking a pee until you've found the one true toilet you can use for the rest of your life and formed and exclusive relationship with it. To be clear, I am not likening sex and lovemaking to taking a pee, but at the level of our fundamental drives, they are alike in how they work in our brains.

I like to point to an article from the guardian about pure O, and do read there how porn was used in a disciplined therapeutic setting. Discipline, awareness and being sensible make all the difference, but must be learned. https://www.theguardian.com/so...

"I assume everyone who disagrees with me is a racist. This makes it much easier for me to assume a moral high ground and dismiss their opinions and experiences out of hand without engaging." -everyone who voted to stay

I can see why you people do this. It's very easy and conveinient!

Oh go for crowd pleasing upvote clicking, social justice easymode retort shy of any actual facts. Sir, take your '"you people" and feck off!

Any campaign run on Xenophobia, fear of immigrants and refugees is racist and since the vote the country as enjoyed a huge surge of racially motivated incidents, as if this vote has given license to be a dick.
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
https://www.theguardian.com/co...
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix...
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.u...

It's a problem, due to there being absolutely no guarantee that the UK will spend the money it currently sends to the EU on all the EU supported projects - science, agrigulture, business development. It's not a guarantee, because a lot of the money will go to funding the extra costs Brexit will incur, such as outsourcing trade negotiators, border security costs (visting EU nationals), vetting of EU nationals wanting to work in the UK, amongst others.

This likely cut in funding was almost immediately obvious when areas such as Cornwal & Wales immediately realised that by voting Brexit, development funds from the EU would be likely to be stopped. Cornwall, for example is wanting assurances about how it will be funded

Alternate sources, if you're not keen on the Grauniad:
Cornwall demands £500m to replace lost EU cash
Cornwall votes decisively for Brexit - then seeks 'assurances' that it won't lose the £60million a year it gets in EU subsidies

I hate to resort to the guardian, but... https://www.theguardian.com/us...
There are better reasons than email idiocy.

Story about Obama firing head of the IRS over as you say "routine business".

I guess you are calling Obama a liar then. Or did you read the spin before it got so bad they had to do something and failed to notice what they admitted to?

They maintain they did nothing wrong. That means that their lack of ethics remains fully at play in every other business decision.

I'm generally the last person to defend Facebook, but this case appears to be a bit different from the typical "Kids rack up bills in in-app purchases" scenarios we've seen in Google or Apple in previous years. In particular, note the follow from another article on this case:

One child's mother let him spend $20 on her credit card to let him unlock features within the game Ninja Emblem, but the account was charged several hundred dollars for purchases the child subsequently made with what he thought was fake money.

The other child racked up charges of $1,059 after taking his parent's debit card without permission.

While the lawsuit was class-action and applies to a lot of other cases, these were the ONLY two kids who actually were directly involved in the suit, one of whom simply took his parent's card without permission.

That's something that ANY online site could have issues with -- a kid who takes a parent's card could be making purchases anywhere online. Why exactly should Facebook be more culpable than any other online site in dealing with payments like that?

Would it be NICE for Facebook to return that money? Sure. But not all companies would, particularly for goods that were non-returnable. In that case, most parents would have to take this up as a dispute with their credit card company, who probably would work it out. (Unfortunately, though, this says it was a debit card -- one more reason never to use debit cards... they simply don't give you as much protection if they are ever used in an unauthorized manner.)

Anyhow, obviously it would be reasonable for Facebook to refund most or all of the money in a case like this. But it's a rather different scenario from some of the other "in-app purchase" judgments we've seen. In those cases, the issue was that a credit card was generally entered by parents, say to make a couple app purchases, and they didn't realize that their device was set to automatically authorize all future purchases or whatever. In those cases, what was lacking was a proper control setting to turn off in-app purchases, a proper password requirement, or some sort of warning.

In other words, the credit card information was entered knowingly for an authorized reason, but the parent had no clear notice that it could be used further without limit.

Here the bar is much lower -- basically, any kid under 18 is eligible for refunds, regardless of what level of negligence on the parent's part, whether the card was basically stolen from the parents, or whatever. Again, it's generally the "right thing to do" to refund the money, but ethically I think at least in one scenario here Facebook is not as culpable or "evil" as some other cases we've seen.

Apple has stated in the past that if the tax rate were reduced they would pay the tax to bring the cash back to the U.S. - they just consider (rightfully) the current rate to be exorbitant. Note that in the article the amount they want the tax rate reduced to for re-patriation is higher than they pay for taxes in Ireland.

People (and companies) will do the right thing as long as it does not hurt TOO BADLY to do so. Currently moving the money back to the U.S. would be negligent on their part and invite a shareholder lawsuit for blatant stupidity.

I bet BIC have sold more than a billion Biros. And disposable razors.

Exactly ... 100 billion BIC crystal biros (ballpoints) as of about 10 years ago ... that is probably the best-selling "single product" of all time ..

Bic over the moon as sales top 100bn

Its ego. How do you know? Because Trump has been acting out like this for his entire public life, even when he had no one to "drown out." He just lucked out this time, finally finding the most receptive audience yet.

For example:

Back in the 1993, he lobbied to keep an indian tribe from being official recognized by the federal government because they had plans to build a casino and he didn't want the competition. So he told a house subcommittee that the tribe members don't look like indians.

Back in 1989, Trump took out full-page ads in the 4 largest new york newspapers calling for the reinstatement of the death penalty in order to have five black teenagers executed. They were convicted, but in the 2000s they were all proven innocent.

You do realize the only person in this election cycle to have an assassination attempt is Trump, right? https://www.theguardian.com/us...

You're an idiot.

Heh, nowadays it's probably just tap water from Flint...

The thing is that as the quality of tap water goes down, people are going to buy bottled water even if it's only slightly "better". It's big business, and the industry is frequently allowed to draw millions of gallons from drought stricken areas.

Look, Anna Nicole Smith is dead. Let her rest in peace already!

I wonder if they'll ever look into Get Shorty.

But really, if you want to securely launder drug money, just take it to the bank. They are invincible to any prosecution.

Interesting points there, and you've swayed my opinion a bit, but I think I'm still weighted against such policies. I remember when record labels paid out millions over such a minimum pricing scheme for CDs. I saw that as a consumer victory (if only a short-lived one; they were sued again for artificially inflating the price of downloads). Record stores didn't really compete on service or customer satisfaction, even with minimum prices in force. Sure, the clerk at the mom 'n pop place might share a joint with you in the back room, but it was still just racks full of CDs priced the same as every other store with racks full of CDs. I guess some industries are better suited to minimum pricing strategies than others.

Where does it come from? Isn't it obvious? HSBC of course!

Please show me ONE death that is directly linked to the radiation in Fukushima from people living in the area.

The alternative they have is coal-plants for the foreseeable future... (10+ years at least)
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...