even if we ignore the fact that they're not actually doing anything wrong and therefore shouldn't be liable for anything - there's still the point of it wouldn't be possible to link any specific accident to the page.
A portion of NSW speed cameras have been installed by Poltech International, some of whose installed cameras gave wildly inaccurate readings in Victoria.... Some motorists claimed they had been booked doing speeds their vehicles were not capable of reaching.... Last month, following checks of these claims, it emerged that three of the cameras were faulty.... The readings had led to fines and licence suspensions for some motorists.
in the above scenario, shooting them is something he did.
if you need a different example, say you have donated 10's of thousands of dollars to what you thought was a great charity (thorough their legitimate looking website), yes was in fact an extremist terrorist group who committed some grand atrocity. you have then provided material support to terrorists. - you were trying to donate to charity which would be good, however you in fact provided material support to terrorists - bad.
in the same example say you knew they were not a charity but simply thought they would use the money to lobby congress/organise protests whatever to change peoples opinions towards their cause and were unaware they would commit horrendous acts.
or perhaps you knew exactly what they were doing but after weighing up the pros/cons were under the belief that the horrendous terrorist act would be of net benefit to society.
what if you were under the belief that only people who share your beliefs mattered and knew it would be of detriment others but of positive gain for your group.
in all of the above situations, you have provided material support to terrorists which has helped them commit horrendous acts. therefore by the definition "A good person is one who does good. A bad person is one who does bad." all the above would make you a bad person.
A good person is one who does good. A bad person is one who does bad.
so if you were an actor and had to shoot someone in a scene, and i replaced your prop gun with a real loaded weapon so you shot them for real you would be a bad person? if someone's girlfriend tells them that they really like sex rough but in fact hate it and he has rough sex with her which she pretends to like yet really hates it. he is a bad person? if someone holds a gun to my head and threatens to kill me unless i give them all my money, then when i hand them over my money that makes me a good person?
a good person is someone who does good - solely for the sake of being good.
say you were paying a certain amount of money to live in an apartment. now imagine each year the landlord wants to raise the the rent. suddenly the initial ratio of cost to benefit has eroded, yet moving out is not a trivial decision.
oh wait. that's kind of the standard rental situation.
I'll believe that physics is a branch of philosophy when I see philosophers use statistical and experimental methods to refine or dismiss the theories of Heidegger.
you have it backwards - sets are not bound by the rules of their subsets.
Or, for that matter, use philosophy to send men to the moon.
already happened - we used the physics brach of philosophy. i'd like to see physics send a man to satori. - this experiment may be a good step.
it doesn't have to be cheaper for me to print a sneaker than the individual price of a mass produced shoe by nike. it has to be cheaper for me to print them than to purchase it in a shop.
it's in both The Americas (or America)[2][3][4] are lands in the Western Hemisphere that are also known as the New World. Comprising the continents of South America and North America
Definition of AMERICA 1. either continent (North America or S. America) of the western hemisphere 2. or the Americas the lands of the western hemisphere including North, Central, & S. America & the W. Indies
Would you also claim that Brazil is in 'America'?
Yes, and Argentina, which is where one half of my family comes from. They also claim that it is in America.
are Canada and Brazil located in the same continent?
what third party? there are two parties involved in google reading the e-mail. Google who are reading the e-mail. and the Recipient. as we've aggreed the e-mail is his property, he is free to allow Google(or anyone) to read the e-mail.
This would be the equivalent of your postman opening your mail stating that since you 'sent' it, it's no longer yours and therefore the United States Postal Service can just open and read it as it pleases.
not really, it's more like if you send a letter to a blind man, who has someone else open all his mail and read it to him. you never agreed to this other person reading the mail however, the blind man can grant authority to him to read it.
It doesn't matter what Google states in it's terms of use. Those are non-binding to a third party who signed no such agreement. The sender also has an expectation of privacy here.
they don't need to agree. the reciever of an e-mail is free to allow anyone they want to read it - without asking or even telling the sender. there's even a forward function in nearly every e-mail client/service. the only time this would be wrong is if the sender and reciever had an agreement that the contents of the e-mail were confidential and not to be shared with anyone - in this instance it could only be the reciever who has done wrong, not Google (as Google are a non-binding third party who signed no such agreement.)
The sender also has an expectation of privacy here.
So, if farmer is using roundup and not paying royalties, then they are guilty
Guilty of what? if my field get's contaminated, and i realise roundup won't kill the plants i want, but will kill others. then how does using it make me a bad person?
The way i see it is, if a farmer genetically engineers seeds(in a lab not via cross-breeding) to be resistent to roundup, then he's guilty. otherwise - he's not.
The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt – it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” The future must not belong to those who bully women – it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons. The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources – it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs; workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the men and women that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied..
but I would like to point out that April's parents probably had their guts turn inside out upon hearing that remark.
which they probably wouldn't of read/heard. if noone made a big deal about it.
regardless. if he'd posted this on their wall/sent private messages to them regarding this then i could concede that he was harassing them and should be dealt with accordingly. i can't tell if that's the case as it seems difficult to find out much about this case(i haven't looked all that hard) if he had posted this on his own wall however. then fuck you to anyone that believes he should be punished in any way. he's done nothing wrong.
if you were offended by this (what i actually find to be quite clever) joke, then you should probably learn to understand communication. sentences/statements usually do not mean what their literal interpretation would suggest. e.g. my friends an i often say to eachother that we hate eachother(or similar) in a jovial manner. we know that it's not a literal statement, or some sort of passive aggressive dig, but it means that we are comfortable enough with eachother to fell that we can be jokingly hostile without the other interepreting it wrong.
similarly this style of humour does is not cheering on whatever it is making light of. instead it is made in a manner very close to sarcasm - it's so obvisouly known to be wrong that noones saying this is right - they're merely aknowledging that this is a bad situation in a light hearted way.
it's not about forcing anyone to hire anyone. its about forcing people not to discriminate based on irrelevant attributes(i.e. race/gender/height/beliefs) when making hiring decisions.
freedom from discrimination is more important* that freedom to hire who you want, so in cases where they overlap - freedom from discrimination should win out.
i don't believe this law is even about that. from what i gather it would prevent you from hiring a smoker even if you wanted to.
*in my opinion, some others believe the opposite and as such some countries/states/counties may have this reversed.
Drinking outside of work is a legal activity, but we dont allow it for lunch, or for people to come in drunk.
actually you can drink as much as you want while not on the clock (including during lunch time) as long as you are not still drunk when you are on the clock. you would not (and could not) get fired for "drinking during lunchtime' you would be fired for "being under the influence while at work"
i occasionally drink on my lunch-breaks if i'm going out for a meal. i just don't go downing shots/sculling drinks and return to work drunk.
Slashdot Mirror
Back then it could take hours to download a browser suite over a modem
and imagine how much harder it would have been if you didn't have a browser to start with.
Today I with a few keystrokes and clicks I can install chrome in less than a minute and never see IE ever again.
and the first thing you click on to do that would be - IE
i got that when i came back from the U.S.
i figured it was due to the fact that i had previously travelled to saudi arabia
if doing that cost me zero time, effort, and money then i wouldn't have a problem.
even if we ignore the fact that they're not actually doing anything wrong and therefore shouldn't be liable for anything - there's still the point of it wouldn't be possible to link any specific accident to the page.
except odometers only have to be accurate to within 10% for a car to be roadworthy
If you don't break the law you can't get a ticket.
because speed cameras have never been found to be faulty, badly calibrated, or officers insufficiently trained in their use?
you've really never heard of inaccurate speed cameras or insufficient training in how to use them?
it happens
A portion of NSW speed cameras have been installed by Poltech International, some of whose installed cameras gave wildly inaccurate readings in Victoria. ... .... ...
Some motorists claimed they had been booked doing speeds their vehicles were not capable of reaching
Last month, following checks of these claims, it emerged that three of the cameras were faulty.
The readings had led to fines and licence suspensions for some motorists.
in the above scenario, shooting them is something he did.
if you need a different example, say you have donated 10's of thousands of dollars to what you thought was a great charity (thorough their legitimate looking website), yes was in fact an extremist terrorist group who committed some grand atrocity. you have then provided material support to terrorists. - you were trying to donate to charity which would be good, however you in fact provided material support to terrorists - bad.
in the same example say you knew they were not a charity but simply thought they would use the money to lobby congress/organise protests whatever to change peoples opinions towards their cause and were unaware they would commit horrendous acts.
or perhaps you knew exactly what they were doing but after weighing up the pros/cons were under the belief that the horrendous terrorist act would be of net benefit to society.
what if you were under the belief that only people who share your beliefs mattered and knew it would be of detriment others but of positive gain for your group.
in all of the above situations, you have provided material support to terrorists which has helped them commit horrendous acts. therefore by the definition "A good person is one who does good. A bad person is one who does bad." all the above would make you a bad person.
A good person is one who does good. A bad person is one who does bad.
so if you were an actor and had to shoot someone in a scene, and i replaced your prop gun with a real loaded weapon so you shot them for real you would be a bad person?
if someone's girlfriend tells them that they really like sex rough but in fact hate it and he has rough sex with her which she pretends to like yet really hates it. he is a bad person?
if someone holds a gun to my head and threatens to kill me unless i give them all my money, then when i hand them over my money that makes me a good person?
a good person is someone who does good - solely for the sake of being good.
say you were paying a certain amount of money to live in an apartment. now imagine each year the landlord wants to raise the the rent. suddenly the initial ratio of cost to benefit has eroded, yet moving out is not a trivial decision.
oh wait. that's kind of the standard rental situation.
But all the other shards have Trammel
medicine: medicine is the stuff that works, "alternative" medicine is everything else.
Medicine is the stuff that specific set of people belive to work and have some understanding how/why they should work.
Physics is all the ideas about the universe that have meaningful applications to the real world, and philosophy is everything else.
Physics is a bunch of ideas about the universe which are percieved to be measurable or verifiable in some way.
I'll believe that physics is a branch of philosophy when I see philosophers use statistical and experimental methods to refine or dismiss the theories of Heidegger.
you have it backwards - sets are not bound by the rules of their subsets.
Or, for that matter, use philosophy to send men to the moon.
already happened - we used the physics brach of philosophy.
i'd like to see physics send a man to satori. - this experiment may be a good step.
what about dark city?
it doesn't have to be cheaper for me to print a sneaker than the individual price of a mass produced shoe by nike.
it has to be cheaper for me to print them than to purchase it in a shop.
Canada is in 'North America', not 'America'.
it's in both
The Americas (or America)[2][3][4] are lands in the Western Hemisphere that are also known as the New World. Comprising the continents of South America and North America
Definition of AMERICA
1. either continent (North America or S. America) of the western hemisphere
2. or the Americas the lands of the western hemisphere including North, Central, & S. America & the W. Indies
Would you also claim that Brazil is in 'America'?
Yes, and Argentina, which is where one half of my family comes from. They also claim that it is in America.
are Canada and Brazil located in the same continent?
No.
I haven't seen it written anywhere that Google is identifying the sender and using the contents of the sent e-mail to target ads at the sender/
what third party?
there are two parties involved in google reading the e-mail.
Google who are reading the e-mail.
and the Recipient. as we've aggreed the e-mail is his property, he is free to allow Google(or anyone) to read the e-mail.
British Columbia is in Canada, which is in America.
This would be the equivalent of your postman opening your mail stating that since you 'sent' it, it's no longer yours and therefore the United States Postal Service can just open and read it as it pleases.
not really, it's more like if you send a letter to a blind man, who has someone else open all his mail and read it to him. you never agreed to this other person reading the mail however, the blind man can grant authority to him to read it.
It doesn't matter what Google states in it's terms of use. Those are non-binding to a third party who signed no such agreement. The sender also has an expectation of privacy here.
they don't need to agree. the reciever of an e-mail is free to allow anyone they want to read it - without asking or even telling the sender. there's even a forward function in nearly every e-mail client/service. the only time this would be wrong is if the sender and reciever had an agreement that the contents of the e-mail were confidential and not to be shared with anyone - in this instance it could only be the reciever who has done wrong, not Google (as Google are a non-binding third party who signed no such agreement.)
The sender also has an expectation of privacy here.
which is not being breached.
So, if farmer is using roundup and not paying royalties, then they are guilty
Guilty of what?
if my field get's contaminated, and i realise roundup won't kill the plants i want, but will kill others. then how does using it make me a bad person?
The way i see it is, if a farmer genetically engineers seeds(in a lab not via cross-breeding) to be resistent to roundup, then he's guilty. otherwise - he's not.
context would be nice.
The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt – it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” The future must not belong to those who bully women – it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons. The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources – it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs; workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the men and women that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied..
but I would like to point out that April's parents probably had their guts turn inside out upon hearing that remark.
which they probably wouldn't of read/heard. if noone made a big deal about it.
regardless. if he'd posted this on their wall/sent private messages to them regarding this then i could concede that he was harassing them and should be dealt with accordingly. i can't tell if that's the case as it seems difficult to find out much about this case(i haven't looked all that hard) if he had posted this on his own wall however. then fuck you to anyone that believes he should be punished in any way. he's done nothing wrong.
if you were offended by this (what i actually find to be quite clever) joke, then you should probably learn to understand communication. sentences/statements usually do not mean what their literal interpretation would suggest.
e.g. my friends an i often say to eachother that we hate eachother(or similar) in a jovial manner. we know that it's not a literal statement, or some sort of passive aggressive dig, but it means that we are comfortable enough with eachother to fell that we can be jokingly hostile without the other interepreting it wrong.
similarly this style of humour does is not cheering on whatever it is making light of. instead it is made in a manner very close to sarcasm - it's so obvisouly known to be wrong that noones saying this is right - they're merely aknowledging that this is a bad situation in a light hearted way.
it's not about forcing anyone to hire anyone. its about forcing people not to discriminate based on irrelevant attributes(i.e. race/gender/height/beliefs) when making hiring decisions.
freedom from discrimination is more important* that freedom to hire who you want, so in cases where they overlap - freedom from discrimination should win out.
i don't believe this law is even about that. from what i gather it would prevent you from hiring a smoker even if you wanted to.
*in my opinion, some others believe the opposite and as such some countries/states/counties may have this reversed.
Drinking outside of work is a legal activity, but we dont allow it for lunch, or for people to come in drunk.
actually you can drink as much as you want while not on the clock (including during lunch time) as long as you are not still drunk when you are on the clock.
you would not (and could not) get fired for "drinking during lunchtime' you would be fired for "being under the influence while at work"
i occasionally drink on my lunch-breaks if i'm going out for a meal. i just don't go downing shots/sculling drinks and return to work drunk.