Look, insurance companies raising your rates because other people can't drive responsibly is annoying. I pay 2000 a year (a lot) for insurance because statistically speaking, people like me (young and male), can't seem to get it together behind the wheel.
On the other hand, I don't think I was trumpeting better targeted insurance rates as the big victory of the fingerprint system.
All I was saying is that maybe it was a fair trade based on the amount of irresponsible behavior that goes on around alcohol. Maybe its not.
Only the stupidest of criminals will expose themselves through these channels anyway
Fortunately I think that's pretty much what we're dealing with here.:D. I don't think anyone is really going to figure out clever ways to commit drunken crime and get away with it.
But more seriously, this system seems like a good trade. Everyone giving up freedom for miniscule gain because 3000 people died... eh not so good (BTW I am aware that this article is UK). But lets be honest and admit that there's a lot of assholish behavior that goes on when people drink at bars... and furthermore a lot of people get killed when that irresponsible behavior extends itself to motor vehicles. Maybe alcohol causes enough trouble that oversight is overall a benefit to society.
EXACTLY. In order to justify using the power of government to impose a regulatory regime on video speech, they (logically) must also justify to us imposing the same regime on text speech. At which point all of their weasel-words about protecting children, etc. go right out the goddamn window, and the essential evil of this idea is exposed.
Actually it is, you just took the PR bait. That statement is akin to me saying "I'm upset that timmy vandalized our gym, but I'm even more upset that I didn't notice it until a weekday when school was in session."
I agree overall but have to call you on #1. There are plenty of good reasons not to censor, but 'other bad stuff is already out there' isn't one of them.
That would be like me saying we don't need gun control laws because, come on, knives kill poeple too. If anything that kind of a statement is an argument for cracking down more on text and pictures, not less on video. Assuming the goal is minimization of hate speech and harm to children's sensibilities.
Which I agree are not really out of control problems in the US.
Good joke, but seriously, isn't this a good reason to detonate conventional explosives over a nuke even if you have nukes?
I mean if I'm NK and I have 6-8 nukes (which I think the general estimate is), I probably wouldn't be wild about essentially pissing away half my arsenal just to prove it existed Particularly if I was confident I didn't have to.
Just a thought.
Slashdot Mirror
Look, insurance companies raising your rates because other people can't drive responsibly is annoying. I pay 2000 a year (a lot) for insurance because statistically speaking, people like me (young and male), can't seem to get it together behind the wheel.
On the other hand, I don't think I was trumpeting better targeted insurance rates as the big victory of the fingerprint system.
All I was saying is that maybe it was a fair trade based on the amount of irresponsible behavior that goes on around alcohol. Maybe its not.
Fortunately I think that's pretty much what we're dealing with here. :D. I don't think anyone is really going to figure out clever ways to commit drunken crime and get away with it.
But more seriously, this system seems like a good trade. Everyone giving up freedom for miniscule gain because 3000 people died... eh not so good (BTW I am aware that this article is UK). But lets be honest and admit that there's a lot of assholish behavior that goes on when people drink at bars... and furthermore a lot of people get killed when that irresponsible behavior extends itself to motor vehicles. Maybe alcohol causes enough trouble that oversight is overall a benefit to society.
You're absolutey right. So to you I say touche.
Ah thankyou. Someone defended Apple's statement earlier (and got a +5 insightful), saying that they were clearly taking the blame.
"We're sorry Microsoft shat all over the floor in the lounge, but it happened on our watch so we take full responsibility"
Yeah thanks apple. You're such a big man.
Actually it is, you just took the PR bait. That statement is akin to me saying "I'm upset that timmy vandalized our gym, but I'm even more upset that I didn't notice it until a weekday when school was in session."
Am I really taking the blame?
I agree overall but have to call you on #1. There are plenty of good reasons not to censor, but 'other bad stuff is already out there' isn't one of them.
That would be like me saying we don't need gun control laws because, come on, knives kill poeple too. If anything that kind of a statement is an argument for cracking down more on text and pictures, not less on video. Assuming the goal is minimization of hate speech and harm to children's sensibilities.
Which I agree are not really out of control problems in the US.
So here's an intersting question. The US may soon have a country that threatens using nukes on our soil.
Do we go MAD again?
And as another thought, I hope this crap makes it obvious to people just how safe we've been the past decade. Orange level terror alert my ass.
Good joke, but seriously, isn't this a good reason to detonate conventional explosives over a nuke even if you have nukes? I mean if I'm NK and I have 6-8 nukes (which I think the general estimate is), I probably wouldn't be wild about essentially pissing away half my arsenal just to prove it existed Particularly if I was confident I didn't have to. Just a thought.