Did you ever stop to think that the directive actually causes discrimination, by essentially penalising a demographic that normally attracts lower premiums? Or did you fall into the trap of 'this treats both genders equally, therefore it must be good'? I'm willing to bet it was the latter.
Only for ISPs that provide services to government agencies and public bodies. There's no requirement that it's applied to private consumer connections, although the majority of ISPs have voluntarily implemented the filter service (provided by the Internet Watch Foundation).
What part of 'only on the likelihood of you making a claim' is so difficult to understand here? Maybe it's the 'only' part, since you keep banging on about ethnicity and sexuality. Did you notice I never identified a particular trait in anything I said? Or did you just read my words and interpret a layer of meaning that just doesn't exist?
You clearly didn't read what I said, which was that insurance premiums should be calculated only on the likelihood of you making a claim. If you happen to be in a demographic that's less likely to make a claim, then you should pay less for insurance. What demographic that is is irrelevant.
Well off the top of my head, Insurance Companies can no longer discriminate against you based on your sex.
Which is stupid, if you really think about it. Insurance should be based on one thing and one thing alone - the likelihood of you making a claim. Before that EU directive, that's essentially what was in place.
I take it you're not a Brit, or you are but you don't keep up to date with the relevant news. Jeremy Hunt thought it was a good idea to let News International own BSkyB. Now he's in charge of the NHS. Frankly, alarm bells should be ringing across the nation.
Firstly, I didn't claim to want access to any personal data, so don't try arguing on that point.
Secondly, if a pilot has a medical condition that could affect his/her ability to fly, then that pilot would have to inform the airline they work for. The airline then decides whether to allow that pilot to fly or not. I, the passenger, have no involvement in this process, nor do I wish to see any data relating to it.
Thirdly, it's not fair to compare drugs to medical conditions, as people can choose whether to use drugs or not.
Fourthly, don't even try to imply any racism on my part; genetic ancestry has no role in this by any measure.
But what about the guy flipping burgers or delivering your pizza? Checkout girl at the grocery store? Janitors, groundskeepers, all the service jobs out there that are generally the only ones available to the undereducated and working poor.
If I'm not entrusting my life to them (as I would be to a pilot), then they don't need to be drug tested.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention the self-levelling essentially balancing a baseball bat on a bottle cap.
Light's faster still - doesn't stop WildCat being cool.
Personally, I'm in the 'don't turn every debate into a pointless racism argument' camp.
Did you ever stop to think that the directive actually causes discrimination, by essentially penalising a demographic that normally attracts lower premiums? Or did you fall into the trap of 'this treats both genders equally, therefore it must be good'? I'm willing to bet it was the latter.
That's basically a longer version of what i put here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3100137&cid=41258935
I see I have to boil my argument down to the bare minimum, since you seem intent on purposefully misreading it:
More likely to make claim => higher premiums.
That is my entire argument, in all it's manifest complexity. Note how it cleverly weaves absolutely no discrimination whatsoever into its logic.
Only for ISPs that provide services to government agencies and public bodies. There's no requirement that it's applied to private consumer connections, although the majority of ISPs have voluntarily implemented the filter service (provided by the Internet Watch Foundation).
What part of 'only on the likelihood of you making a claim' is so difficult to understand here? Maybe it's the 'only' part, since you keep banging on about ethnicity and sexuality. Did you notice I never identified a particular trait in anything I said? Or did you just read my words and interpret a layer of meaning that just doesn't exist?
You clearly didn't read what I said, which was that insurance premiums should be calculated only on the likelihood of you making a claim. If you happen to be in a demographic that's less likely to make a claim, then you should pay less for insurance. What demographic that is is irrelevant.
I just had a thought; what would the Google National Anthem be?
a single program with over 200 vulnerabilities per version
I count 20+ programs in a typical Windows Java installation.
Also, how does this 200+ compare to other frameworks, like Flash or Silverlight?
The one based on them censoring Wikipedia for showing an album cover?
IIRC, that filter is maintained by a private company.
The UK government loves to outsource - when it inevitably goes wrong, they can just say 'wasn't us!'
you guys might be a shining light of freedom
More like a dim bulb in a basement.
Well off the top of my head, Insurance Companies can no longer discriminate against you based on your sex.
Which is stupid, if you really think about it. Insurance should be based on one thing and one thing alone - the likelihood of you making a claim. Before that EU directive, that's essentially what was in place.
Google is one of the few countries
I knew Google was big, but I didn't think they were that big :)
I take it you're not a Brit, or you are but you don't keep up to date with the relevant news. Jeremy Hunt thought it was a good idea to let News International own BSkyB. Now he's in charge of the NHS. Frankly, alarm bells should be ringing across the nation.
Probably, Bender would have stolen it.
FTFY
Don't forget the adrenaline rush.
I just wait until it appears on TV. is this "piracy" too, as it for sure involves a 'lost sale'?
The list of things wrong with this argument is longer than the extended version of 'War and Peace'.
Firstly, I didn't claim to want access to any personal data, so don't try arguing on that point.
Secondly, if a pilot has a medical condition that could affect his/her ability to fly, then that pilot would have to inform the airline they work for. The airline then decides whether to allow that pilot to fly or not. I, the passenger, have no involvement in this process, nor do I wish to see any data relating to it.
Thirdly, it's not fair to compare drugs to medical conditions, as people can choose whether to use drugs or not.
Fourthly, don't even try to imply any racism on my part; genetic ancestry has no role in this by any measure.
But what about the guy flipping burgers or delivering your pizza? Checkout girl at the grocery store? Janitors, groundskeepers, all the service jobs out there that are generally the only ones available to the undereducated and working poor.
If I'm not entrusting my life to them (as I would be to a pilot), then they don't need to be drug tested.
I don't care if they smoked a spliff three days before either - doesn't make my point any less valid.
Pirated copy != lost sale
He had to wait another week for his eye transplant.
Damn socialized medicine.
Either that, or it didn't rain for a week.
I guess you were going for funny, but wouldn't recursion come under conditional branching?