My ex keeps trying various filtering software to keep my eldest son {age 14} from viewing porn... with pretty predictable results. One Google search for a workaround, and he's back in business.
I was more than amused when she tried to complain to me. "Gee, son, follow the rules" was what came out of my mouth, although I couldn't keep from smiling. "Way to figure it out and disable it so you can see what you're so curious about!" was what was going through my mind, though.
Heck, when I was his age, I was hip-deep in porn mags at my friend's house. I can't blame him for hormones.
Do I drive more carefully when I need to "stay beneath the radar?" Yes, I am always aware of my illegal status.
Makes sense, but then you said:
Licenses and insurance do not necessarily make for safer streets.
Not to play the part of Captain Obvious, but even if you DON'T have insurance, you know you SHOULD, and so drive with more care. The little piece of paper may not change your habits itself, but the thought of it does...
Personally, I like the German system {as I remember it circa '82}. State-sponsored driver's ed, around $700.... MANDATORY. You lose your license? You go back to driver's ed. Driving wasn't seen as a "right" as perceived in many places; it was seen as a privilege and responsibility. Man, I miss the Autobahn.
While I'm under the poverty line, I still make sure my car insurance is kept up. Before I could afford a car, I rode the bus.
This isn't discrimination against the poor; it's the poor trying to live beyond their means by operating a car before they're financially able. I have about as much sympathy for those folks as I do for the folks that took out mortgages they couldn't afford... or is that "discrimination against the middle class"?
...with geek cred, too: It may start OFF as "Dueling Banjos", but if my deafness isn't betraying me, the duet is from the old Atari 2600 game Vanguard {during the "diagonal" boards}...
Sure I can see it as wrong, or just plain stupid if you want to keep your job, but unethical?
I don't think we're on the same page. From the Merriam-Webster entry for wrong {adjective}:
1 : not according to the moral standard : sinful , immoral
2 : not right or proper according to a code, standard, or convention : improper
Especially when considering the noun version specifically lists "unethical" in the 2nd definition, I'd call "wrong" as an equivalent to "unethical", yes...
What would YOU consider the difference to be between those words?
Watch COPS sometime. People get man handled & 'beat down' while they are following all the commands the police are giving.
I do, regularly.
...and I've yet to see the illegal beatdowns for compliant suspects. I've seen LOTS of people try to argue, pull their hands away, fight the cops, or run. As for unwarranted beatdown? Nothing yet, unless you can present an episode number that I missed.
Don't get me wrong, crooked cops ARE out there; I've run into a few... But the cops *I* know are solid, want to help their community, and aren't in it for a power-trip. Y'know, the real cops.
From my perspective in the US though, how does spending an extra 30 minutes a week filing yourself out of the building in any way impede your access to work? You can still work, and are not being discriminated against in that regard.
It doesn't. They noticed that it was causing him problems and VOLUNTARILY let him go earlier. That's just common-sense taking care of your employees. For example, my boss has a policy that if I need information from a client, he'll call. Works great for me, as I'm 70% deaf. Did I ask for this? Nope. Did I sue for this? Nope. Am I happy that I don't have to stress out the client by asking them to repeat themselves every two seconds? Delighted. Do I work harder for a boss that's willing to work with my disability? You betcha!
What on earth is "mustering up any dander"? I mean, I guess you mean getting annoyed at the government. I just can't make the connection to how "mustering" of "dander" fits in.
So yes, same damn thing, just with extra options if you really enjoy the spoiled realm of running as "root".
You can't be trying to tell me that it works like that by default, and that a user will know how to set it like that, or that they should to begin with.
I'm not saying that fixes don't exist. I AM saying that the users that need it most will be the ones least likely to know about and implement them. I'd like that as a default, not a buried setting that Joe six-pack will never see...
It's not a bandaid, since its basically a copy of what every other OS does and is considered critical. Run as a least priviledged user and elevate only when necessary.
No, it's NOT a copy of what other OSes try to do... it's a pale imitation.
Example: My eldest son, at the age of *5*, could turn on a Win 95 PC, knew to hit {ESC} to get past the password prompt, knew which CD to insert and which icon to click to do what he wanted, dismissing any dialogue boxes that appeared.
That's the UAC. Security a 5-year-old could click past. I put the same kid {8 years later} on Ubuntu to see if he could get past the prompts to do some damage. The password stopped him every time.
I prefer the private sector (non-profit charities, churches, etc) for providing relief to the poor.
Gues you've never been poor enough to require those services, then. They're overstretched as it is; cutting food stamps, disability, and Medicare while expecting a third party to cover the resulting mess is wishful thinking, to say the least.
Regardless of whether geeks=lawyers or not, the simple fact is that most home wifi boxes aren't equipped to keep logs on this kind of scale.
Yup, found out that my Vonage router doesn't allow me to log at all; keeps referring me to Vonage for "enabling that feature". Wonder if that gives me any immunity.
Slashdot Mirror
Would you typically expect a live cat to bounce??
From a great height? I'd expect it to bounce once.... at which point I doubt it'd be a live cat anymore...
My ex keeps trying various filtering software to keep my eldest son {age 14} from viewing porn... with pretty predictable results. One Google search for a workaround, and he's back in business.
I was more than amused when she tried to complain to me. "Gee, son, follow the rules" was what came out of my mouth, although I couldn't keep from smiling. "Way to figure it out and disable it so you can see what you're so curious about!" was what was going through my mind, though.
Heck, when I was his age, I was hip-deep in porn mags at my friend's house. I can't blame him for hormones.
Not to sound trite, but bipedal locomotion coupled with an early departure would be my first answer...
The part I like to point out, in impolite company, is how the Puritans were so insufferable that the DUTCH actually threw them out as well.
Were I the Dutch, I would've too... Nothing harshes a good bud buzz like the smell of burning witch...
Pardon the confusion, but you said:
Do I drive more carefully when I need to "stay beneath the radar?" Yes, I am always aware of my illegal status.
Makes sense, but then you said:
Licenses and insurance do not necessarily make for safer streets.
Not to play the part of Captain Obvious, but even if you DON'T have insurance, you know you SHOULD, and so drive with more care. The little piece of paper may not change your habits itself, but the thought of it does...
Personally, I like the German system {as I remember it circa '82}. State-sponsored driver's ed, around $700.... MANDATORY. You lose your license? You go back to driver's ed. Driving wasn't seen as a "right" as perceived in many places; it was seen as a privilege and responsibility. Man, I miss the Autobahn.
While I'm under the poverty line, I still make sure my car insurance is kept up. Before I could afford a car, I rode the bus.
This isn't discrimination against the poor; it's the poor trying to live beyond their means by operating a car before they're financially able. I have about as much sympathy for those folks as I do for the folks that took out mortgages they couldn't afford... or is that "discrimination against the middle class"?
...with geek cred, too: It may start OFF as "Dueling Banjos", but if my deafness isn't betraying me, the duet is from the old Atari 2600 game Vanguard {during the "diagonal" boards}...
Sure I can see it as wrong, or just plain stupid if you want to keep your job, but unethical?
I don't think we're on the same page. From the Merriam-Webster entry for wrong {adjective}:
1 : not according to the moral standard : sinful , immoral
2 : not right or proper according to a code, standard, or convention : improper
Especially when considering the noun version specifically lists "unethical" in the 2nd definition, I'd call "wrong" as an equivalent to "unethical", yes...
What would YOU consider the difference to be between those words?
In the US, a treaty isn't law until the Senate ratifies it.
So they go for an end run: they can make it an international agreement instead and bypass the Senate altogether...
...and as the IA-to-Treaties ratio is about 10:1, I'd not be surprised to see them at least TRY this approach.
Unless you're thinking of dropping them from the ISS, they ALL start on the surface...
Watch COPS sometime. People get man handled & 'beat down' while they are following all the commands the police are giving.
I do, regularly.
...and I've yet to see the illegal beatdowns for compliant suspects. I've seen LOTS of people try to argue, pull their hands away, fight the cops, or run. As for unwarranted beatdown? Nothing yet, unless you can present an episode number that I missed.
Don't get me wrong, crooked cops ARE out there; I've run into a few... But the cops *I* know are solid, want to help their community, and aren't in it for a power-trip. Y'know, the real cops.
Considering how many flakes are in government work, your mental picture works for me as well...
From my perspective in the US though, how does spending an extra 30 minutes a week filing yourself out of the building in any way impede your access to work? You can still work, and are not being discriminated against in that regard.
It doesn't. They noticed that it was causing him problems and VOLUNTARILY let him go earlier. That's just common-sense taking care of your employees. For example, my boss has a policy that if I need information from a client, he'll call. Works great for me, as I'm 70% deaf. Did I ask for this? Nope. Did I sue for this? Nope. Am I happy that I don't have to stress out the client by asking them to repeat themselves every two seconds? Delighted. Do I work harder for a boss that's willing to work with my disability? You betcha!
What on earth is "mustering up any dander"? I mean, I guess you mean getting annoyed at the government. I just can't make the connection to how "mustering" of "dander" fits in.
Try here.
It's an archaic term from the American Old West.
Logic fail. If it didn't work, they wouldn't get the right answer. ;)
Kind of like evaluating "This statement is false."
Your wealth does not cause my poverty.
This guy would care to differ...
So yes, same damn thing, just with extra options if you really enjoy the spoiled realm of running as "root".
You can't be trying to tell me that it works like that by default, and that a user will know how to set it like that, or that they should to begin with.
I'm not saying that fixes don't exist. I AM saying that the users that need it most will be the ones least likely to know about and implement them. I'd like that as a default, not a buried setting that Joe six-pack will never see...
It's not a bandaid, since its basically a copy of what every other OS does and is considered critical. Run as a least priviledged user and elevate only when necessary.
No, it's NOT a copy of what other OSes try to do... it's a pale imitation.
Example: My eldest son, at the age of *5*, could turn on a Win 95 PC, knew to hit {ESC} to get past the password prompt, knew which CD to insert and which icon to click to do what he wanted, dismissing any dialogue boxes that appeared.
That's the UAC. Security a 5-year-old could click past. I put the same kid {8 years later} on Ubuntu to see if he could get past the prompts to do some damage. The password stopped him every time.
Security theater != security.
So was it the really good Swiss lenses, or the Japanese biotech ones that need to be replaced before your optic nerve rots?
I think the bigger question would be if they're willing to work at the House of Blue Lights to GET the Zeiss-Ikons....
Long link and ad-heavy site short, "What recording contract?".
Are you sure? From the article you linked:
"We have that element of complete freedom with the next record, so we can do whatever we want.
I'd venture that means that the pile of steaming crap he downloaded was/is still under contract.
In Texas, it's the other way around...
As long as you don't lie about the ex-employee, you appear to be covered legally.
If you want real news, you will need to pay.
I'm paying my cable company for CNN, and those yahoos gave me Nancy Grace in return for that cash.
Pay does not always equal "real news"... After all, USA Today, the National Enquirer, and World Weekly News charge for their rags, too...
I prefer the private sector (non-profit charities, churches, etc) for providing relief to the poor.
Gues you've never been poor enough to require those services, then. They're overstretched as it is; cutting food stamps, disability, and Medicare while expecting a third party to cover the resulting mess is wishful thinking, to say the least.
Regardless of whether geeks=lawyers or not, the simple fact is that most home wifi boxes aren't equipped to keep logs on this kind of scale.
Yup, found out that my Vonage router doesn't allow me to log at all; keeps referring me to Vonage for "enabling that feature". Wonder if that gives me any immunity.
Lying to a cop is not a crime in of itself.
Actually, yes, lying to a cop IS illegal in many places.