No one expects you to do shit. I do expect insurance companies to take care of those they ensure. And I do expect the government to help poor people.
I don't know why your panties are in a bunch. What the fuck you expect. You want every health insurer to charge you a premium increase everytime you have sex outside of marriage? Every time you eat red meat? Everytime you don't eat red meat if the head of the company starts believing in Atkin's?
No, there's no easy definition for where the line between parental rights / belief dominate and where child abuse begins should be. But there must be a line.
No, there must not be a line. Because everyone makes some bad choices and some good ones. While some choices are severe enough to outweigh any amount of good ones, the vast majority of the time the question has to be "on balance, are they a good enough parent."
So, we have to have more discretion built into the system. Which leads to more abuse. But that's better than some stupid zero-tolerance line.
. I can see why some people wouldn't want to pay for somebody else's knee surgery, or heart transplant if they brought it on themselves by their own lifestyle
Are there really people who say "your particular combination of luck, genetics, circumstance and choices are so much more influenced by choice than anything that unlike other people with health conditions, fuck you" ?
Are those people worried that the lack of financial incentives will be the tipping point?
There are plenty of languages you learn in half a day, e.g. as a C++ developer it should not take you much to learn Java/C#
If you stick to the "See Spot Run" of "I can compile a sort algorithm" or similar, sure. But, just randomly based on my experiences, that's bullshit. The quirks of any language are fundamentally important. I've spent a couple of days looking for a bug in my code, that turned out to be a subtle difference in how templates/generics are handled between C++ and C#, where I was used the C++ way. Threading models are slightly different. Understanding when C# is passing by reference and by value is slightly diffferent.
I'm not saying it's impossible. And I'd rather hire a smart C++ programmer for a c# position than a dumb C# programmer. But I'd be far more likely to hire a smart C++ programmer who knew it would take more than a day than to hire a slightly smarter C++ programmer who thought that was all it took to switch.
But if you want to learn a skill that will almost certainly get you a job somewhere, then learning to flip burgers is a pretty safe way to ensure a job (quality of job not considered).
Not really. In 2009, you were more likely to get into Harvard then to get a job at McDonalds... and McDonalds was hiring tens of thousands of new employees. And that's one of the many new part time jobs they opened up, not one that pays the bills.
JS and PHP are a lot like that. A lot of jobs, but so many people competing for them, and so few hiring managers are able to judge quality, that it becomes a lottery for a shit job.
If you want a skill that will almost certainly get you a job somewhere, I recommend getting a CPA or something similar. Do something that is difficult, boring and yet is required by most people/companies and you'll do fine.
Well, they say that female led companies are more common in B2C industries, more common on the coasts (esp. New England to Washington D.C. ), and more common in healthcare industries, and in non-profits. They apparently didn't control for any of those.
He didn't dodge it. He said "We're not worried about lawlessness. Our job is to make the most secure product we can. Our job is not to help enforce laws" It's a rejection of the premise of the question, sure. But it's not a dodge. It's a clearly articulated moral stance.
And, fundamentally, the laws people may be breaking could be morally bankrupt. Besides, it seems technically impossible to limit lawlessness without harming anonymity.
Please do not let a stupid typo (went back to change "parental class" to include a longer list of variables to control for, forgot to modify the verb) distract from my message.
o which they would likely respond by putting you in a jail cell until such time as you were able to consult your lawyer and then proceed with the search with or without your help. Probably would charge you with obstruction of justice at a minimum.
Only if it's easier to do that than anything else. The trick is that he's not saying "no". He's saying "yes when". So the FBI makes a phone call, meets a judge, gets a sheet of paper, and gets cooperation.
I mean seriously, in what world of stupidity and cynicism did getting kids through post-graduate education became "average results"?
I think that there would probably be nigh-zero correlation between secondary education and post-graduate education, once parental class, income and values was controlled for. To put it another way, the GP isn't saying your kid is average. Your kid is getting the average results for a parent that emphasizes education.
Or, a totally different way: In my extended family, it is totally considered expected to at least get an undergraduate degree. Whether the kid in question went to public or private school, or even was homeschooled. And people do it. I'm sure your family is the same. So chalking it up to homeschooling seems like a lot of post hoc ergo proctor hoc reasoning.
mine has a timer, but that does mean setting it up the night before...
There's no way around that, unless you want a robot or something. Because the grounds won't put themselves in the coffee maker. And you can program it to work 5 days a week. Hell, you can even hook a water line up.
This morning I woke up and knew that getting coffee would be a chore involving going over to the kitchen, setting everything up, waiting a few minutes
They make coffee makers that you fill with beans and water the night before, and it will grind the coffee and start the brewing so it is ready at a precise time. I have no objection to a programmable device. I even have no real objection to a LAN controllable device. My objection is to a device that connects to the internet. Because that last leap is just to spy on me.
Or in other words, I've never been on vacation and been like "must make coffee right now."
Uber refusing to play nicely with the laws is bigger problem than just fucking the existing taxis. For one, as you mentioned, they don't ensure a safe (read, insured) ride. But taxi regulations also prevent taxis from refusing service to handicapped people with guide dogs (for instance). While there may be some de facto racism when hailing a cab moving along the street, it cannot be baked into the service, but Uber seems like they will allow drivers to not pick up certain races of people. Basically, a good deal of regulations for taxis are to deal with ensuring edge cases get treated fairly. And all-white Portsmouth with it's 21,000 people (and declining) just doesn't have to deal with the edge cases that arise in cities.
government-regulated taxis versus free-market Uber.
Unregulated does not mean "free-market". Government regulations may hamper a free market. But, many times, Government regulations exist because there can be no free market in that market space. Ride sharing is likely to fall into that vein.
You're talking about contingency, not pro-bono. Pro-bono is when the lawyers don't get paid at all.
And a contingency case means that a firm is investing their resources. Which means (a) There's a finite limit on the resources that can be spent and (b) They have to think it will pay off.
I tend to agree with you pragmatically. Which means I think there should be a lot of government regulation of the app stores. Cause there are only two. And it's almost impossible for someone to compete with them (maybe MS over the course of 5 years and $5B).
So the app stores should have to play fairer, because the market cannot autocorrect. For instance, maybe Apple shouldn't force bundling of their IAP ecosystem? Or have it's rates limited?
Slashdot Mirror
No one expects you to do shit. I do expect insurance companies to take care of those they ensure. And I do expect the government to help poor people.
I don't know why your panties are in a bunch. What the fuck you expect. You want every health insurer to charge you a premium increase everytime you have sex outside of marriage? Every time you eat red meat? Everytime you don't eat red meat if the head of the company starts believing in Atkin's?
How does anyone else's exercise pattern impact you? Absent people who you care about (family, friends) harming themselves.
No, there must not be a line. Because everyone makes some bad choices and some good ones. While some choices are severe enough to outweigh any amount of good ones, the vast majority of the time the question has to be "on balance, are they a good enough parent."
So, we have to have more discretion built into the system. Which leads to more abuse. But that's better than some stupid zero-tolerance line.
Are there really people who say "your particular combination of luck, genetics, circumstance and choices are so much more influenced by choice than anything that unlike other people with health conditions, fuck you" ?
Are those people worried that the lack of financial incentives will be the tipping point?
If you stick to the "See Spot Run" of "I can compile a sort algorithm" or similar, sure. But, just randomly based on my experiences, that's bullshit. The quirks of any language are fundamentally important. I've spent a couple of days looking for a bug in my code, that turned out to be a subtle difference in how templates/generics are handled between C++ and C#, where I was used the C++ way. Threading models are slightly different. Understanding when C# is passing by reference and by value is slightly diffferent.
I'm not saying it's impossible. And I'd rather hire a smart C++ programmer for a c# position than a dumb C# programmer. But I'd be far more likely to hire a smart C++ programmer who knew it would take more than a day than to hire a slightly smarter C++ programmer who thought that was all it took to switch.
Not really. In 2009, you were more likely to get into Harvard then to get a job at McDonalds... and McDonalds was hiring tens of thousands of new employees. And that's one of the many new part time jobs they opened up, not one that pays the bills.
JS and PHP are a lot like that. A lot of jobs, but so many people competing for them, and so few hiring managers are able to judge quality, that it becomes a lottery for a shit job.
If you want a skill that will almost certainly get you a job somewhere, I recommend getting a CPA or something similar. Do something that is difficult, boring and yet is required by most people/companies and you'll do fine.
Yeah, if you insist every answer be self-contained. But the cryptolocker answer came first. Between the two, it seems pretty obvious.
TOR talks about these same issues on their site, how they are a result of deliberate choices, and why.
You're doing it wrong. Those should be different dreams.
Well, they say that female led companies are more common in B2C industries, more common on the coasts (esp. New England to Washington D.C. ), and more common in healthcare industries, and in non-profits. They apparently didn't control for any of those.
There's a video?
I recommend NoScript. Or FlashBlock. Or, well, there's like a million options.
He didn't dodge it. He said "We're not worried about lawlessness. Our job is to make the most secure product we can. Our job is not to help enforce laws" It's a rejection of the premise of the question, sure. But it's not a dodge. It's a clearly articulated moral stance.
And, fundamentally, the laws people may be breaking could be morally bankrupt. Besides, it seems technically impossible to limit lawlessness without harming anonymity.
Please do not let a stupid typo (went back to change "parental class" to include a longer list of variables to control for, forgot to modify the verb) distract from my message.
Only if it's easier to do that than anything else. The trick is that he's not saying "no". He's saying "yes when". So the FBI makes a phone call, meets a judge, gets a sheet of paper, and gets cooperation.
This clearly aligns their goals
I think that there would probably be nigh-zero correlation between secondary education and post-graduate education, once parental class, income and values was controlled for. To put it another way, the GP isn't saying your kid is average. Your kid is getting the average results for a parent that emphasizes education.
Or, a totally different way: In my extended family, it is totally considered expected to at least get an undergraduate degree. Whether the kid in question went to public or private school, or even was homeschooled. And people do it. I'm sure your family is the same. So chalking it up to homeschooling seems like a lot of post hoc ergo proctor hoc reasoning.
Umm... yay? I'll give up Slashdot in a heartbeat if that means people will give up expecting to communicate with me on Twitter or Facebook.
There's no way around that, unless you want a robot or something. Because the grounds won't put themselves in the coffee maker. And you can program it to work 5 days a week. Hell, you can even hook a water line up.
They make coffee makers that you fill with beans and water the night before, and it will grind the coffee and start the brewing so it is ready at a precise time. I have no objection to a programmable device. I even have no real objection to a LAN controllable device. My objection is to a device that connects to the internet. Because that last leap is just to spy on me.
Or in other words, I've never been on vacation and been like "must make coffee right now."
We don't. Just like we don't want our coffee makers on the web, or our every online move tracked by companies.
What makes you think consumer demand matters? Build it, and then manufacture the demand.
Uber refusing to play nicely with the laws is bigger problem than just fucking the existing taxis. For one, as you mentioned, they don't ensure a safe (read, insured) ride. But taxi regulations also prevent taxis from refusing service to handicapped people with guide dogs (for instance). While there may be some de facto racism when hailing a cab moving along the street, it cannot be baked into the service, but Uber seems like they will allow drivers to not pick up certain races of people. Basically, a good deal of regulations for taxis are to deal with ensuring edge cases get treated fairly. And all-white Portsmouth with it's 21,000 people (and declining) just doesn't have to deal with the edge cases that arise in cities.
Unregulated does not mean "free-market". Government regulations may hamper a free market. But, many times, Government regulations exist because there can be no free market in that market space. Ride sharing is likely to fall into that vein.
The adversary mentioned in Job is not "Satan the Devil". It's in fact not a name, but a non-proper noun. "The adversary" "The opposer"
Nor is it in any way clear that it is somehow an adversary to God. It can, and probably should, be read as an adversary to Job himself.
The rules apply if and only if you use said ticket. So yes, you are still required to agree to the rules to use the gift.
You're talking about contingency, not pro-bono. Pro-bono is when the lawyers don't get paid at all.
And a contingency case means that a firm is investing their resources. Which means (a) There's a finite limit on the resources that can be spent and (b) They have to think it will pay off.
And they are right to be upset about no-knock warrants in non-violent situations. That's just not what we're talking about here.
I tend to agree with you pragmatically. Which means I think there should be a lot of government regulation of the app stores. Cause there are only two. And it's almost impossible for someone to compete with them (maybe MS over the course of 5 years and $5B).
So the app stores should have to play fairer, because the market cannot autocorrect. For instance, maybe Apple shouldn't force bundling of their IAP ecosystem? Or have it's rates limited?