Wouldn't the accessibility of guns, due to laws allowing many law abiding citizens to own guns, increase the prevalence and availability to criminals?
I understand your argument - it's just that when you promote a gun culture I'd naturally assume that will lead to everyone having easier access to them, whether legal or illegal.
And their biggest bias is on a very narrow and easy to correct for subject: anything to do with Qatar or direct Qatari interests is treated differently. But fortunately I don't go to them primarily for news on Qatar.:) On other subjects, even the Middle East (outside Qatar), they are not even that biased, certainly nowhere near as much as what their strangely negative reputation in the U.S. would lead you to believe.
Anything to do with Saudi Arabia is also treated very differently, at least lately. Since Qatar and the Sauds have been snuggling up AJ has gone quiet on Saudi Arabia, which used to be a primary target for them. Orders came down from the top, so they no longer report on possibly the most brutal regime in the Middle East other than fluff pieces.
So don't kid yourself - AJ is likely as much a mouthpiece of the folks in charge as RT is. They're just a lot more subtle.
The issue for your problem isn't the press, it is government access given to the press. However, the government cannot control anything in the press
Sorry, what? I refer you to my two previous examples - embedded reporters and Pentagon staff in the newsrooms. That's exactly control of the press. And that's only the domestic press. What happens to foreign reporters and press agencies is often much, much worse.
That index is complete and utter bullocks. UK better than US? Hardly. The UK can and does prohibit all sorts of "news" from being published, especially about the Royals, yet it ranks significantly higher than the US. This is an OPINION survey, not actual reality survey.
And the US took the lead in oppressing news from the front lines under the guise of 'embedded reporters' and Pentagon 'consultants' in news rooms. One country censors gossip column stuff, the other war reporting. Mind you, most countries have followed the US's lead in this including the UK.
Sorry, but people who hate the US will always rate it lower than other more oppressive regimes simply because of hate.
Reporters Without Borders hates the US? Why? Actually, since it's based on feedback from reporters around the world, who tend to have a little better insight into freedom of the press, I believe your suggestion implies that reporters hate the US.
There's lots of other surveys out there if you'd prefer - but you are unlikely to find any credible ones with the US at the top.
You didn't think those advertisements telling you to buy gold were for your own good, did you? No, they are to drive the price of gold high and keep it that way.
The folks that are swayed to buy gold by a 30 second TV spot aren't even a blip in the market. There's tens of thousands of tens in government reserves around the world, and individual investors are likely many decimal places away from even being noteworthy.
Your examples use the very brightest of those civilizations and doesn't necessarily disagree with TFA. It's entirely plausible that the brightest of today may not be any more intelligent then the brightest from centuries ago, but that average intelligence has risen due to access to information, public education, etc.
The technical crowd loves to complain about Apple's walled garden, but this is exactly the genius of Apple.
Apple is only able to create a walled garden thanks to layers that have been built before by the tinkerers and technical folk. So I think that while Apple's strategy may work well in the short term, it will likely be their downfall long term.
When you create the walled garden you allow developers to focus on apps, but exclude them from the areas that may have a large impact. Apple needs to do it themselves for the newest innovations. That fancy new, revolutionary FS or networking will need to be ported. Or they'll need to come up with it themselves. Either way, they'll start to lag behind and be restricted in what they can do.
That's likely because you use a computer to create some sort of content outside of work. I'd say the majority of people no longer fall under this category - most are almost purely content consumers, with the occasional email or facebook update. For them, the tablet is perfect - easy to use and carry around.
The 486 tablets came at a time when most folks using a computer outside of work were creating content, gaming, etc. The market simply wasn't there.
show me ONE valid quote about israel wanting to 'wipe out' all arabs.
All arabs? Who said anything about all arabs? Oh, but wait:
"We must expel Arabs and take their places." -- David Ben Gurion
You asked for only one, but there a literally hundreds by prominent Israelis. Now, for more relevant to the topic at hand, I suggest you google 'Israel threatens Iran'. You'll find plenty, with specific threats and timelines ("within months").
but don't let that stop your jew hatred.
Where did you get 'jew hatred' from the parents comment? Is questioning Israel's foreign policy 'jew hatred'? Would it be racist to question any other countries foreign policy? Why do you hate Persians?
Targeted ads are fine, it's the tracking that is used to generate those ads that isn't. And until someone sets up a decent system to allow opt-in targeted ads that protects the users privacy, it's pretty tough to have one without the other.
I read it, but I don't think one can conclude that showing a suicide will necessarily influence people to commit suicide. Unless I'm missing something, it appears from their examples that there's a correlation between the method of suicide shown and the number of actual suicides using that method. That doesn't mean there was an increase in suicides across the board, just using the particular method.
The same tactic that is banned in the First Geneva Convention, of which the US is a signatory. Anyone ordering or carrying out those kinds of drone strikes is a war criminal.
That only applies in wars between sovereign states. You may recall the 'unlawful enemy combatant' designation which conveniently circumvents such things.
I hate to point the finger at either since they're all guilty, but I think the Bush doctrine of preemptive war pretty much escalated things as far as you can go. Within that context it would seem that any 'enemy' or threat, foreign or domestic, is fair game.
No, Canadian officials are by law only allowed to use constituents correspondence to address that specific correspondence, unless the constituent agrees otherwise. That's covered in the Privacy Act, and on the surface it appears that this MP violated it.
This has nothing to do with retention of emails, and I do understand how easy it is for anyone to compile a list of individuals who emailed on a specific topic. The point is they aren't allowed to keep lists of people interests/preferences/etc. There was a recent controversy along the same lines - the CPC was keeping a list of individuals voting intentions and it may have been used to target folks in the robocall scandal.
Also: You have signed petitions to the goverment stating your opinion, but you don't want the government to note your opinion?
You do understand the difference between an official addressing a specific correspondence and compiling a list of people who are interested in X, right?
In Canada we have the Privacy Act which states very specifically what the government may or may not compile lists on. The government may not compile any list of my interests/preferences/etc, for good reason. In this case if a government official is keeping a list of 'those with concerns about gay refugees' rights' it is in violation of the Privacy Act.
No, actually I'm not. I'm merely extrapolating the potential for abuse.
Governments should not compile lists of individuals opinions/preferences/etc for good reason - that can, and likely will, be abused. Note that this is different than demographics and certainly not the same as addressing a constituents specific concern by responding to specific correspondence.
Also, the government didn't compile anything. Probably an association requested the people to sign in and it was that association who did compile the list and gave it to the government. The government just used it.
That's a big assumption - the list was likely compiled based on emails directly sent to the MP via a petition.
There's a big difference between addressing a specific concern in a constituents correspondence and compiling a list of constituents sexual preferences to use for communication/propaganda/whatever. I've signed petitions regarding copyright reform - that doesn't give the government the right to put me on a list of potential pirates.
Certainly, but it does not mean I I give consent for the state to record me within any demographic and compile a list of individual's sexual orientation. That's the slippery slope here.
Sure, but do you really think it's appropriate for the government to be compiling lists of 'potential X's' based on petitions? Potential drug addicts because they signed a petition to legalize pot, potential pirates because they signed a petition for copyright reform, potential child molesters because...
Governments aren't supposed keep lists of peoples habits or preferences, and for good reason. Those lists can easily be abused or compromised.
Green says she never communicated with Kenney's office. However, she did sign what she believed was an online petition about a refugee claimant who was about to be deported.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't the accessibility of guns, due to laws allowing many law abiding citizens to own guns, increase the prevalence and availability to criminals?
I understand your argument - it's just that when you promote a gun culture I'd naturally assume that will lead to everyone having easier access to them, whether legal or illegal.
And their biggest bias is on a very narrow and easy to correct for subject: anything to do with Qatar or direct Qatari interests is treated differently. But fortunately I don't go to them primarily for news on Qatar. :) On other subjects, even the Middle East (outside Qatar), they are not even that biased, certainly nowhere near as much as what their strangely negative reputation in the U.S. would lead you to believe.
Anything to do with Saudi Arabia is also treated very differently, at least lately. Since Qatar and the Sauds have been snuggling up AJ has gone quiet on Saudi Arabia, which used to be a primary target for them. Orders came down from the top, so they no longer report on possibly the most brutal regime in the Middle East other than fluff pieces.
So don't kid yourself - AJ is likely as much a mouthpiece of the folks in charge as RT is. They're just a lot more subtle.
The issue for your problem isn't the press, it is government access given to the press. However, the government cannot control anything in the press
Sorry, what? I refer you to my two previous examples - embedded reporters and Pentagon staff in the newsrooms. That's exactly control of the press. And that's only the domestic press. What happens to foreign reporters and press agencies is often much, much worse.
That index is complete and utter bullocks. UK better than US? Hardly. The UK can and does prohibit all sorts of "news" from being published, especially about the Royals, yet it ranks significantly higher than the US. This is an OPINION survey, not actual reality survey.
And the US took the lead in oppressing news from the front lines under the guise of 'embedded reporters' and Pentagon 'consultants' in news rooms. One country censors gossip column stuff, the other war reporting. Mind you, most countries have followed the US's lead in this including the UK.
Sorry, but people who hate the US will always rate it lower than other more oppressive regimes simply because of hate.
Reporters Without Borders hates the US? Why? Actually, since it's based on feedback from reporters around the world, who tend to have a little better insight into freedom of the press, I believe your suggestion implies that reporters hate the US.
There's lots of other surveys out there if you'd prefer - but you are unlikely to find any credible ones with the US at the top.
According to the Press Freedom Index there are 46 countries that do it better, at least when it comes to freedom of the press.
You didn't think those advertisements telling you to buy gold were for your own good, did you? No, they are to drive the price of gold high and keep it that way.
The folks that are swayed to buy gold by a 30 second TV spot aren't even a blip in the market. There's tens of thousands of tens in government reserves around the world, and individual investors are likely many decimal places away from even being noteworthy.
Your examples use the very brightest of those civilizations and doesn't necessarily disagree with TFA. It's entirely plausible that the brightest of today may not be any more intelligent then the brightest from centuries ago, but that average intelligence has risen due to access to information, public education, etc.
The technical crowd loves to complain about Apple's walled garden, but this is exactly the genius of Apple.
Apple is only able to create a walled garden thanks to layers that have been built before by the tinkerers and technical folk. So I think that while Apple's strategy may work well in the short term, it will likely be their downfall long term.
When you create the walled garden you allow developers to focus on apps, but exclude them from the areas that may have a large impact. Apple needs to do it themselves for the newest innovations. That fancy new, revolutionary FS or networking will need to be ported. Or they'll need to come up with it themselves. Either way, they'll start to lag behind and be restricted in what they can do.
That's likely because you use a computer to create some sort of content outside of work. I'd say the majority of people no longer fall under this category - most are almost purely content consumers, with the occasional email or facebook update. For them, the tablet is perfect - easy to use and carry around.
The 486 tablets came at a time when most folks using a computer outside of work were creating content, gaming, etc. The market simply wasn't there.
Things you have already said publicly (not to the police) are AFAIK fair game.
Not really. They are still subject to the rules of evidence, and can be excluded for numerous reasons.
It also only relates to the rights of the accused while in custody.
show me ONE valid quote about israel wanting to 'wipe out' all arabs.
All arabs? Who said anything about all arabs? Oh, but wait:
"We must expel Arabs and take their places."
-- David Ben Gurion
You asked for only one, but there a literally hundreds by prominent Israelis. Now, for more relevant to the topic at hand, I suggest you google 'Israel threatens Iran'. You'll find plenty, with specific threats and timelines ("within months").
but don't let that stop your jew hatred.
Where did you get 'jew hatred' from the parents comment? Is questioning Israel's foreign policy 'jew hatred'? Would it be racist to question any other countries foreign policy? Why do you hate Persians?
Also,
MAY CONTAIN PEANUTS
Targeted ads are fine, it's the tracking that is used to generate those ads that isn't. And until someone sets up a decent system to allow opt-in targeted ads that protects the users privacy, it's pretty tough to have one without the other.
I read it, but I don't think one can conclude that showing a suicide will necessarily influence people to commit suicide. Unless I'm missing something, it appears from their examples that there's a correlation between the method of suicide shown and the number of actual suicides using that method. That doesn't mean there was an increase in suicides across the board, just using the particular method.
What do email addresses have to do with bitcoins?
The same tactic that is banned in the First Geneva Convention, of which the US is a signatory. Anyone ordering or carrying out those kinds of drone strikes is a war criminal.
That only applies in wars between sovereign states. You may recall the 'unlawful enemy combatant' designation which conveniently circumvents such things.
I hate to point the finger at either since they're all guilty, but I think the Bush doctrine of preemptive war pretty much escalated things as far as you can go. Within that context it would seem that any 'enemy' or threat, foreign or domestic, is fair game.
But yeah, Obama didn't change a damn thing.
No, Canadian officials are by law only allowed to use constituents correspondence to address that specific correspondence, unless the constituent agrees otherwise. That's covered in the Privacy Act, and on the surface it appears that this MP violated it.
This has nothing to do with retention of emails, and I do understand how easy it is for anyone to compile a list of individuals who emailed on a specific topic. The point is they aren't allowed to keep lists of people interests/preferences/etc. There was a recent controversy along the same lines - the CPC was keeping a list of individuals voting intentions and it may have been used to target folks in the robocall scandal.
Also: You have signed petitions to the goverment stating your opinion, but you don't want the government to note your opinion?
You do understand the difference between an official addressing a specific correspondence and compiling a list of people who are interested in X, right?
In Canada we have the Privacy Act which states very specifically what the government may or may not compile lists on. The government may not compile any list of my interests/preferences/etc, for good reason. In this case if a government official is keeping a list of 'those with concerns about gay refugees' rights' it is in violation of the Privacy Act.
You are confusing terms.
No, actually I'm not. I'm merely extrapolating the potential for abuse.
Governments should not compile lists of individuals opinions/preferences/etc for good reason - that can, and likely will, be abused. Note that this is different than demographics and certainly not the same as addressing a constituents specific concern by responding to specific correspondence.
Also, the government didn't compile anything. Probably an association requested the people to sign in and it was that association who did compile the list and gave it to the government. The government just used it.
That's a big assumption - the list was likely compiled based on emails directly sent to the MP via a petition.
There's a big difference between addressing a specific concern in a constituents correspondence and compiling a list of constituents sexual preferences to use for communication/propaganda/whatever. I've signed petitions regarding copyright reform - that doesn't give the government the right to put me on a list of potential pirates.
Certainly, but it does not mean I I give consent for the state to record me within any demographic and compile a list of individual's sexual orientation. That's the slippery slope here.
Sure, but do you really think it's appropriate for the government to be compiling lists of 'potential X's' based on petitions? Potential drug addicts because they signed a petition to legalize pot, potential pirates because they signed a petition for copyright reform, potential child molesters because...
Governments aren't supposed keep lists of peoples habits or preferences, and for good reason. Those lists can easily be abused or compromised.
Actually, no:
Green says she never communicated with Kenney's office. However, she did sign what she believed was an online petition about a refugee claimant who was about to be deported.
Source