It's not a high rate it is about 1% of the prison population some of which are there for their own protection and some of which are just there temporarily for punishment. I bet more than 1% of students get sent to the principals office every day.
The problem is it isn't just used as punishment for crimes. It is being used as a way to protect inmates and as a way to coerce cooperation in investigations. They think you might know something about a gang: bam your in solitary until you testify. To bad about the 5th. To bad if you happen to not know anything or don't want to get shanked.
King sized is 60"X78" = 32.5sqft. So actually it is more like 2.5 king sized beds. It is also a heck of a lot larger than the cubicle I spend half my waking hours in.
It is the existence of vocal fringe groups that allow|create bad policies. Non-terminally ill people (the majority of voters) may have an abstract reason for wanting good pain meds in the future (it could be me suffering one day). Generally speaking the people in the no camp on most "progressive" issues have a less abstract reason for wanting their way: it is somehow evil that is their moral responsibility to wipe out. You can't give good reasons for changed policies to some groups: some groups have their policies handed to them literally on stone tablets and don't care what your argument is because they have a higher power who doesn't have to seem rational to us because His ways are not our ways. Not giving the for camp what they want only makes them moderately more happy with you as an elected official. Giving the against camp what they want both makes it more likely they'll vote for you and equally important stops their phone calls.
Yes because currently peoples lack of apathy in this area has prevented an legalization. Some issues are heated enough and should remain so (abortion, drug legalization and regulation, euthanasia etc) so that constant pressure is put on government/industries to do what is is tolerable and no more to the populous. Not the lowest common denominator of bigot|paranoid|religious zealot|environmentalist wingding but a reasonable approximation of the "reasonable actor"'s opinions. Not doing anything in case you offend someone or because someone someday might expand the legal grants should remove the freedom of the unoffended to act today in their personal (and the only one that matters IMO) best interests. We have government and a process for generating legislation for a reason. Not passing a better legislation because someone else might come along and pass a bad one later isn't governing its sticking your head in the sand so you don't ever have to have a stance on an issue that differs from the most vocal minority on any given issue.
A little over the top but close. They don't freak out about the lack of men in typically women dominated fields (elementary education, nursing). Fields that go along way to excluding men from work or even being customers (how many women's only gyms|aerobics classes out there?).
The genders are different, if a woman wants to pursue CS she is more than welcome too but shouldn't get special assistance. Similarly for a guy that wants to be a second grade teacher. Just don't block them out of the field no need for special scholarships and hand holding from grade 9 on to help them get in. Fix the cases where qualified people are being discriminated against, otherwise until you have that 50% of the other gender complaining they can't enter the field don't worry about it: maybe men are more attracted to working with computers than women, or maybe it is just genetics: the guy doesn't need (or perhaps it is more of a matter of want) to bugger off for a couple years mid career in a field where 2 years is a product cycle or two.
The same war on drugs crowd are the ones that say ACA has death panels and push to prevent any tolerance for euthanasia. They simply don't care if the patient is in pain as long as their moral sensibilities don't get offended.
Or methanol to rubbing alcohol as a preventative measure. Admittedly drinking alcohol itself is a poison but there is little reason to add impurities to research grade alcohol other than to protect the interests of distillers (and government tax revenue). Because: someone working in a lab wouldn't know to add ~2 units of water for each 1 unit of alcohol.
Free software doesn't have to make sense outside of its niche. German brewing laws don't apply outside of Germany or beer making but they still serve a tasty purpose where they do apply.
The problem with the free software movement, at least as RMS and his followers present it, is the assignment of guilt to those who would hold their code proprietary. What about the developers freedom? Do they not have the right to make money if they chose off their work? I think the developer should have the choice to provide whatever license they chose too. If it is truly such an essential piece of technology that society demands "free" access to it then they can change patent laws, use tax payers money to develop an alternative, etc. What they definitely shouldn't be able to do is say: "oh that thing you made and we now realize is a really good idea: give it to us for free or you are a really bad person.".
Well I think for child porn the other side of it is that having the pictures is criminalized even if they can't prove you did the act, know the person that did, that it wasn't consenting, that you were aware at the time of download that it was going to be someone underage you got or just that "young girls" means to you first year university students. The actual criminal assault | guilty mind part of the case isn't proven just the position of evidence that someone somewhere might have done something naughty (assuming it is illegal where they did it) is enough. Very few other areas of the legal system are so clearly thought crimes.
I loved an article I read about this yesterday with a bunch of panicking conservatives: "Our military will be at pre-WWII levels". Well guess what even with Iraq and Afganistan combined the US wasn't any where near as active as during WWII the real question should be: why did it take 70 years?
Bugs get labelled as features usually because some big 3rd party makes software that depends on it. Would you rather that your autocad, Adobe, SAP stopped working and the bug was fixed or that the bug gets shimmed around and hopefully going forward everyone uses the new better API?
Botched OSs I'll give you that one. every 2 or 3 are a hit the ones in between make you hate life.
They are buying the users not the protocol but yeah I don't get it either. They are having such a hard time convincing people to use something with their own brand that they need to buy one that is much less widely known?
Admittedly I'm not a smartphone fan or user but I've literally never heard of them before. I have heard of Twitter, Picassa, Snapchat etc etc but never these guys. They just seem to be another me to app: everyone can give you a window where you can chat back and forth. Why chose them versus skype, google chat, etc? They need to find a way to make the people on the other end attractive women from my city that want to meet... oh wait someone already does that too.
Ah what? It was probably the 3rd year of Obama's first term before Fox News stopped regularly having debates about whether or not Obama was american born and thus qualified to be president. Prism scandal, criticizing drone strikes, the hoopla over Obama care, customer protection bureau or whatever it is called etc. I don't think there has been a call the administration has made that didn't at least have 24/7 coverage by critical talking heads over at Fox for at least (if not several other media outlets) a few days. For Bush it was the same but he did shady shit to so fair enough. Media exists to create a debate even when the majority might agree with something (ex. health care reform is necessary). You don't get good ratings by having 4 panelists saying "I agree we could do better".
Wages haven't kept up with productivity. Business Week this week had an article on the minimum wage and said it would be something like $17 an hour if it had kept up with productivity gains since it was introduced. I'm not suggesting taxing 1% 100% or if I did would I suggest distributing it to the other 99%. It would be more like tax the 1% at 50% and distributed it to the bottom 20%.
Because poor people don't get sick right? Otherwise I agree minimum should be minimum. I would include in the minimum the healthcare and two working parents being able to afford two kids. The first because if you aren't healthy you both have increased expenses and can't work. The second because it is a fundamental need to have the ability to reproduce (whether we should all chose to have 2+ kids is a good idea for the planet as a whole is a different thing). Minimum wage should vary with the cost of living locally. There are a lot of people stuck living in crappy situations in cities because that is where the jobs are but minimum wage in NY doesn't cover what it does in Butfuck Idaho. It is a complicated problem because social programs are available in cities people live there, but it would be cheaper to care for those that need the programs somewhere where housing and food is less expensive. Jobs will attract people to other areas but often rural/suburban areas are short jobs already.
The wealth is there it is the distribution that is off. The median income is something like $20 an hour. There are roughly 30M people working at or very near to minimum wage in the US which of course means they helped lower that average down to that $20 an hour. That is the wage earners how about the people that don't make their living based on wages? Should companies management be pushed to make higher profits every year while they aren't able to pay salaries that adjusted for inflation match the 60's? If the shareholders get a raise every year shouldn't the employees that are actually working to make it happen? At any rate the money is there without going to your ridiculous suggestion of just arbitrarily printing more money. It is just us with the 3 TVs 2 cars and xbox don't want to give up one of them to the guy that gardens our house and babysits our kids.
Capital buys machinery, materials and people's time. Generally speaking for any largish company the majority of the investors are not the ones coming up with the ideas, marketing them to customers, dealing with customer complaints etc. With out the workers the company would own a bunch of boxes piled on the receiving dock that had no value added to it since it was purchased from the suppliers. It would be exactly the same value as it had before (less spoilage) and would have no return on investment.
Sounds great but people get stuck. You move to a medium sized town with what you think will be a great job. For a couple years it is. You get married have kids, buy a house etc. Now it is hell. You can piss away half a years salary on relocation expenses, get your wife to leave her job and hope she can find something wherever your going that is comparible, relocate kids etc. Or you are tied down geographically because of family reasons (parents getting older etc). Either way "just get another job" only works if you have another job nearby sometimes.
Our policies could learn something from the military (at least the Canadian army where I served): shareholders shouldn't get profits until the people generating the profits have a livelihood. When I served the troops eat first. Then the sergeants, then the officers. If the food ran out or you ran out of time etc. too bad for the higher ups. A similar pecking order can be seen in a lot of religious groups, leaders are meant to be the first of the servants not the reason why the whole thing exists.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a high rate it is about 1% of the prison population some of which are there for their own protection and some of which are just there temporarily for punishment. I bet more than 1% of students get sent to the principals office every day.
The problem is it isn't just used as punishment for crimes. It is being used as a way to protect inmates and as a way to coerce cooperation in investigations. They think you might know something about a gang: bam your in solitary until you testify. To bad about the 5th. To bad if you happen to not know anything or don't want to get shanked.
King sized is 60"X78" = 32.5sqft. So actually it is more like 2.5 king sized beds. It is also a heck of a lot larger than the cubicle I spend half my waking hours in.
It is the existence of vocal fringe groups that allow|create bad policies. Non-terminally ill people (the majority of voters) may have an abstract reason for wanting good pain meds in the future (it could be me suffering one day). Generally speaking the people in the no camp on most "progressive" issues have a less abstract reason for wanting their way: it is somehow evil that is their moral responsibility to wipe out. You can't give good reasons for changed policies to some groups: some groups have their policies handed to them literally on stone tablets and don't care what your argument is because they have a higher power who doesn't have to seem rational to us because His ways are not our ways. Not giving the for camp what they want only makes them moderately more happy with you as an elected official. Giving the against camp what they want both makes it more likely they'll vote for you and equally important stops their phone calls.
Yes because currently peoples lack of apathy in this area has prevented an legalization. Some issues are heated enough and should remain so (abortion, drug legalization and regulation, euthanasia etc) so that constant pressure is put on government/industries to do what is is tolerable and no more to the populous. Not the lowest common denominator of bigot|paranoid|religious zealot|environmentalist wingding but a reasonable approximation of the "reasonable actor"'s opinions. Not doing anything in case you offend someone or because someone someday might expand the legal grants should remove the freedom of the unoffended to act today in their personal (and the only one that matters IMO) best interests. We have government and a process for generating legislation for a reason. Not passing a better legislation because someone else might come along and pass a bad one later isn't governing its sticking your head in the sand so you don't ever have to have a stance on an issue that differs from the most vocal minority on any given issue.
A little over the top but close. They don't freak out about the lack of men in typically women dominated fields (elementary education, nursing). Fields that go along way to excluding men from work or even being customers (how many women's only gyms|aerobics classes out there?).
The genders are different, if a woman wants to pursue CS she is more than welcome too but shouldn't get special assistance. Similarly for a guy that wants to be a second grade teacher. Just don't block them out of the field no need for special scholarships and hand holding from grade 9 on to help them get in. Fix the cases where qualified people are being discriminated against, otherwise until you have that 50% of the other gender complaining they can't enter the field don't worry about it: maybe men are more attracted to working with computers than women, or maybe it is just genetics: the guy doesn't need (or perhaps it is more of a matter of want) to bugger off for a couple years mid career in a field where 2 years is a product cycle or two.
The same war on drugs crowd are the ones that say ACA has death panels and push to prevent any tolerance for euthanasia. They simply don't care if the patient is in pain as long as their moral sensibilities don't get offended.
Or methanol to rubbing alcohol as a preventative measure. Admittedly drinking alcohol itself is a poison but there is little reason to add impurities to research grade alcohol other than to protect the interests of distillers (and government tax revenue). Because: someone working in a lab wouldn't know to add ~2 units of water for each 1 unit of alcohol.
your lack of pain frightens me. Cut it out.
Free software doesn't have to make sense outside of its niche. German brewing laws don't apply outside of Germany or beer making but they still serve a tasty purpose where they do apply.
The problem with the free software movement, at least as RMS and his followers present it, is the assignment of guilt to those who would hold their code proprietary. What about the developers freedom? Do they not have the right to make money if they chose off their work? I think the developer should have the choice to provide whatever license they chose too. If it is truly such an essential piece of technology that society demands "free" access to it then they can change patent laws, use tax payers money to develop an alternative, etc. What they definitely shouldn't be able to do is say: "oh that thing you made and we now realize is a really good idea: give it to us for free or you are a really bad person.".
Well I think for child porn the other side of it is that having the pictures is criminalized even if they can't prove you did the act, know the person that did, that it wasn't consenting, that you were aware at the time of download that it was going to be someone underage you got or just that "young girls" means to you first year university students. The actual criminal assault | guilty mind part of the case isn't proven just the position of evidence that someone somewhere might have done something naughty (assuming it is illegal where they did it) is enough. Very few other areas of the legal system are so clearly thought crimes.
It really hurts my crack for sex program though.
I loved an article I read about this yesterday with a bunch of panicking conservatives: "Our military will be at pre-WWII levels". Well guess what even with Iraq and Afganistan combined the US wasn't any where near as active as during WWII the real question should be: why did it take 70 years?
Bugs get labelled as features usually because some big 3rd party makes software that depends on it. Would you rather that your autocad, Adobe, SAP stopped working and the bug was fixed or that the bug gets shimmed around and hopefully going forward everyone uses the new better API?
Botched OSs I'll give you that one. every 2 or 3 are a hit the ones in between make you hate life.
They are buying the users not the protocol but yeah I don't get it either. They are having such a hard time convincing people to use something with their own brand that they need to buy one that is much less widely known?
Admittedly I'm not a smartphone fan or user but I've literally never heard of them before. I have heard of Twitter, Picassa, Snapchat etc etc but never these guys. They just seem to be another me to app: everyone can give you a window where you can chat back and forth. Why chose them versus skype, google chat, etc? They need to find a way to make the people on the other end attractive women from my city that want to meet ... oh wait someone already does that too.
Ah what? It was probably the 3rd year of Obama's first term before Fox News stopped regularly having debates about whether or not Obama was american born and thus qualified to be president. Prism scandal, criticizing drone strikes, the hoopla over Obama care, customer protection bureau or whatever it is called etc. I don't think there has been a call the administration has made that didn't at least have 24/7 coverage by critical talking heads over at Fox for at least (if not several other media outlets) a few days. For Bush it was the same but he did shady shit to so fair enough. Media exists to create a debate even when the majority might agree with something (ex. health care reform is necessary). You don't get good ratings by having 4 panelists saying "I agree we could do better".
Especially when it involves foreigners.
That might be more like it. They want to pull a China and encourage their own knockoffs of Google, Amazon, eBay, FacePlant etc.
Ja genau.
Wages haven't kept up with productivity. Business Week this week had an article on the minimum wage and said it would be something like $17 an hour if it had kept up with productivity gains since it was introduced. I'm not suggesting taxing 1% 100% or if I did would I suggest distributing it to the other 99%. It would be more like tax the 1% at 50% and distributed it to the bottom 20%.
It doesn't include health insurance.
Because poor people don't get sick right? Otherwise I agree minimum should be minimum. I would include in the minimum the healthcare and two working parents being able to afford two kids. The first because if you aren't healthy you both have increased expenses and can't work. The second because it is a fundamental need to have the ability to reproduce (whether we should all chose to have 2+ kids is a good idea for the planet as a whole is a different thing). Minimum wage should vary with the cost of living locally. There are a lot of people stuck living in crappy situations in cities because that is where the jobs are but minimum wage in NY doesn't cover what it does in Butfuck Idaho. It is a complicated problem because social programs are available in cities people live there, but it would be cheaper to care for those that need the programs somewhere where housing and food is less expensive. Jobs will attract people to other areas but often rural/suburban areas are short jobs already.
The wealth is there it is the distribution that is off. The median income is something like $20 an hour. There are roughly 30M people working at or very near to minimum wage in the US which of course means they helped lower that average down to that $20 an hour. That is the wage earners how about the people that don't make their living based on wages? Should companies management be pushed to make higher profits every year while they aren't able to pay salaries that adjusted for inflation match the 60's? If the shareholders get a raise every year shouldn't the employees that are actually working to make it happen? At any rate the money is there without going to your ridiculous suggestion of just arbitrarily printing more money. It is just us with the 3 TVs 2 cars and xbox don't want to give up one of them to the guy that gardens our house and babysits our kids.
Capital buys machinery, materials and people's time. Generally speaking for any largish company the majority of the investors are not the ones coming up with the ideas, marketing them to customers, dealing with customer complaints etc. With out the workers the company would own a bunch of boxes piled on the receiving dock that had no value added to it since it was purchased from the suppliers. It would be exactly the same value as it had before (less spoilage) and would have no return on investment.
Sounds great but people get stuck. You move to a medium sized town with what you think will be a great job. For a couple years it is. You get married have kids, buy a house etc. Now it is hell. You can piss away half a years salary on relocation expenses, get your wife to leave her job and hope she can find something wherever your going that is comparible, relocate kids etc. Or you are tied down geographically because of family reasons (parents getting older etc). Either way "just get another job" only works if you have another job nearby sometimes.
Our policies could learn something from the military (at least the Canadian army where I served): shareholders shouldn't get profits until the people generating the profits have a livelihood. When I served the troops eat first. Then the sergeants, then the officers. If the food ran out or you ran out of time etc. too bad for the higher ups. A similar pecking order can be seen in a lot of religious groups, leaders are meant to be the first of the servants not the reason why the whole thing exists.