have you bought a new car lately? with a 7,000 page manual that tells you things like the secret combination of keys to press to alter the speed-sensitive volume adjustment on the sound system, or how to calibrate the compass in the rear view mirror to optimize it for your particular location? (that's a real thing, btw)
or the weird little 500 page, 2 by 3 inch manual thagt comes with your new smartphone; meanwhile you can't get any sort of instructions for 90% of the apps you might want to use.
what a world, what a world....
Nope, a good UX is pure fantasy. I'm still waiting for one.
They all try to put too many options together. They all still have a pile of "miscellaneous" functions that all get lumped together. They still all use the technical / marketing terms of the designers (rather than the real-world experience descriptions of actual users). Almost none have sensible default settings or logically connected changes and it's a rarity to see them structured in any sort of workflow: good or bad. They always seem to be designed "logically" (captain) rather than with the most frequently used options the least number (i.e. 1) key-click away. And the layout of the remote control needed to operate them is frankly, awful.
reminds me of the days when the TVs would come with an "automatic picture improvement" button, or similar, which would just lock out the brightness, contrast, color, and tint controls and set them all to fixed midrange values. I'm looking at one of those sets right now, an old Sony Trinitron.
"The fact is that Russia is a hostile nation, it's invaded Ukraine, and it's invaded Georgia, it can't pretend it's an innocent bystander that's merely hard done by as you're implying it is."
like the time they invaded Iraq under the premise that it represented an imminent danger to them.
People always say this but the reality is no one knows how global security is going to change through the lifetime of an aircraft and aircraft themselves are evolved to deal with new and emerging threats. People said the same about Europe's Eurofighter Typhoon 5 years ago, and yet it's already having to intercept 4.5th Gen Russian fighters that are infringing European airspace in the Baltic.
In many ways though it kind of works like nuclear deterrents and MAD; in large part the reason we don't have to send things like F-22s up against Su-37s is precisely because Russia knows if it forces such a confrontation it'll lose. The very fact we have the qualitative edge is in itself a reason for not having to use it. If we ditch it because we believe we don't need it, then we're more likely to find that we need it, only then we wont have it and we'll have already lost.
good point, actually. the effectiveness of any weapon causes future conflicts to avoid use of said weapon.
Its unlikely it will ever engage another jet in a combat role, countries we fight are too poor for jets, countries with jets have too much power to attack and know we are too powerful to attack too or our allies.
Its ready to be a glorified bomber, bombing mostly suspected terrorists.
Its unlikely it will ever engage another jet in a combat role, countries we fight are too poor for jets, countries with jets have too much power to attack and know we are too powerful to attack too or our allies.
Its ready to be a glorified bomber, bombing mostly suspected terrorists.
if the US air force, army, and/or navy ever get into a fight with each other, though, they can each be secure in the knowledge that they will not be at a disadvantage in hardware superiority.
...the combat readiness of an aircraft can really only be determined by actual combat.
What's worse, a system like the F-35 that relies so heavily on computers won't be tested adequately until it goes up against a first world power and their various jamming capabilities, and adversaries with 5th Generation fighters.
Shooting fish in a barrel over the Middle East doesn't really count.
so far, the f-35 has kind of been the Joint Strike Paperweight in testing.
And oh you didn't establish using a table saw leads to the presence of sawdust even though it is obvious
NB: Whoosh? A few years ago I'd have assumed this post was a joke, but the way the world is today its hard to be sure, so just in case...
If you'd never seen a table saw before, you'd have no reason to know that it produced sawdust. Fortunately, you just have to saw some wood to see the sawdust spurting out and bingo, you have evidence. Better still, that's reproducible evidence.
Obvious things are only obvious because the evidence is there for the asking.
Unfortunately, you can't watch someone floss their teeth and see the health benefits happening. You won't know for years - and the result could depend on a whole lot of other things like diet, brushing habits and general health. If you don't do some sort of research - which doesn't just have to be clinical trials, but does have to be rational, systematic and evidence-based - you have no way of knowing. You also have to consider that people who floss regularly might also have other good health and personal hygiene habits.
Of course, without research, you also have no idea whether flossing might even be harmful - its easy to come up with hypotheses that it could abrade the teeth, damage the gums, prevent "good" bacteria, damage fillings or make people feel better about eating sugary foods. Frankly, without research, those theories are just as good as the ones saying it is beneficial.
But then, we all know that doing something tedious and unpleasant must be good for us, because, well, its just obvious...
exactly right. finding the benefits of something which only helps decades later is really hard. even just to find the same people is difficult, even if you are continuously following them. then there is the problem that over time people's habits change; so even if your test and control groups were perfectly matched at the beginning, 40 years from now they are likely to have picked up/dropped/changed habits which may affect the result (dental health in this case); even more tricky, when the precise thing you want to study is usually correlated with a whole bunch of other relevant factors. i.e., people who floss are more likely to be meticulous in general, and particularly regarding health; so even if the two groups are well matched on all those factors at first, there is kind of a steady pull that trends to separate them over time.
then, with something like flossing, you only have the person's individual recall as evidence, unless you are actually watching them every night for 40 years. especially where something is considered "morally correct" people will overestimate their participation, even in anonymous surveys; they'll say they floss almost every day when the fact might be that they do so maybe 50% of the time, and thoroughly believe what they're saying.
and: flossing is actually quite a large spectrum of behavior. do they use waxed floss, or unwaxed, or teflon, or ultrafine, or dental tape? are there differences between brand? does mint flavor conceivably make a difference? does mint flavor make a difference in how often they floss? do they floss "correctly" and effectively, or do they just buzz through it as fast as they can and do a crummy job? and again, all of these variables can change over the period of the study.
these kinds of complications are the same reasons why there is still no hard evidence on, for instance, coffee; is it good for you, bad for you, indifferent? in fact, in retrospect, the success of the first big example of this kind of study, cigarette smoking, in producing an unequivocal result is a tribute to how huge an effect that was, and sort of gave public health folks an overoptimistic picture of what population studies would be able to pick up. and, of course, you still have people who insist that the link between cigarette smoking and health is false. (one of them is running for US vice president right now, for instance).
On the upside, if Australia keeps moving in my direction, I will be able to drive directly to Australia in 172,085,760 years or so. Save me a plane ticket! Now I just have to find something to keep me occupied till then.
we must start now to build a wall to keep this nation of former convicts from crossing our borders. when australia sends us their continent, they do not send us their best.
Geez, those Kangaroos are the worst, they can't navigate and they are constantly being distracted by their pouch potatoes. Wombats on the other hand...
http://www.flyingwombat.com/th...
Actually, self-driving cars don't need any location information at all to avoid accidents.
It's not like a GPS can tell them if a light they're approaching is red or green, if there's a car in front of them, or if that hypothetical car is currently slamming on its brakes. It can give them an idea of where to turn, but it can't tell them if there's a pedestrian, a car, a wall, a lake, a big gaping sinkhole in the road, a flooded section, or something like that in the spot where it wants them to turn.
Indeed. human drivers have driven for a long time, and many still drive, without access to GPS info, while still avoiding accidents.
So does this mean that the "infinity" between centimetres and infinitesimal is larger than the infinity between nanometres and infinitesimal?
No. You can subtract a constant from infinity, subtract any finite number from them, and the size of the infinity doesn't change.
and of course, (for those who are not familiar with the concept) the countable infinity, such as the aforementioned infinitely long line of people, equivalent to the integers or the whole numbers, is infinitely smaller than the real numbers, an infinity of which exists between any two integers.
You are confused. I'm not taking about just insulting people, that's fine. I'm taking about creating an atmosphere were a reasonable person would be justifiably afraid.
The problem is defining terms like "justifiably afraid" and "reasonable person" are almost impossible to do in a legal sense and such laws tend to incredibly broad and open to interpretation.
Some Christians believe they are "justifiably afraid" because their kids walk by liquor stores or a gay club on their way home from school. The KKK believes they are "justifiably afraid" of black protests. Some people think they are "justifiably afraid" because people can carry a holstered pistol without wearing a badge. And "reasonable person" in the eyes of most people means "people who think like me".
It wouldn't be acceptable to point a gun at someone's head without pulling the trigger. No physical harm done, but it's a clear threat and would justify a response.
That's a direct threat of violence, which is NOT acceptable. There's a difference between someone saying "You should be shot" and "I'm going to shoot you".
and yet, almost every law includes a "reasonable person" provision. from traffic laws to homicide.
And nanny states are happy to turn on their own citizens eventually.
Really? Which nanny states are you thinking of?
Sweden? Denmark? -- No turning on citizens. Just improving their lot. Singapore? Yes it did ban bubble gum, but on the list of "turning on your own citizens" that seems pretty minor. UK? Yes it does have the same Orwellian surveillance of its own citizens as the US, but that's not really "turning on your own citizens" and it's not really associated with nanny states.
who can forget the tyranny of canada, whose suffering citizens are forced to not undergo bankruptcy because they get severely ill and their insurance maxes out?
Hateful speech is not a crime. This is not the EU. You can be a NeoNazi and drape your house in swastikas if you want. It's only a hate crime once you start gassing people or telling other people to do so.
like:
"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families."
or “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.” or
“I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell ya.” or “Maybe he should have been roughed up because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.”
the hate crimes Trump is spouting every times he open his dirty mouth.
So saying things some people don't like (while lacking any immediate calls for violence)... is now considered a hate crime?
Truly the SJW's have won the cultural war... if you are right... which thankfully you are not.
good point. trump is only spouting support for hate crimes and war crimes. they won't be actual hate crimes until his supporters start taking his advice as incitement.
Give it up. You will never win with any argument of logic or fact when they excuse political incompetence with Bush did it. We know for a fact that help wasn't sent for fears of the political fallout but that isn't important. Sitting on your hands and doing nothing while American officials are being killed is somehow justifiably because under different circumstances Bush did it.
You will never win with any argument of logic or fact with somebody whose definition of fact includes "We know for a fact that help wasn't sent for fears of the political fallout".
WTF do electric car chargers have to do with security? Do you imagine that embassies must have "perfect" security and only then are the employees allowed to have chairs?
Well let's look at it from an IT pov shall we? You'r UID is low enough you should get it. Imagine you've got two satellite offices, one is in a relatively stable, secure area where you can get away with simple keypad lockouts and the occasional guard. The other location is in a shit hole, there's roving bands of thugs and not only do you have heavy security you also have all the existing security.
Now your nice safe office in order to look trendy in their new hip area wants 143 cappuccino and espresso machines, because that'll make them look good. And your other office wants more on the ground bodies and further hardening of the existing security measure to make sure your hardware is secure. So you decide that trendy and hip is the way to go, your other office gets trashed, people get killed and you just say "well there wasn't any money to help with that..." while you just finished spending several hundred thousand dollars for cappuccino and espresso machines.
So the money was there, it could have been reallocated by dispensation to the security fund. But instead of doing that you're now responsible for the deaths of a couple of people, destruction of your hardware and other issues. And your response is: "what difference does it make?"
except that the security budget is specifically allocated by the house and senate.
excuse the afterthefact support for my statement by replying to myself, please.
"GOP cuts to embassy security draw scrutiny, jabs from Democrats
By Alexander Bolton - 09/18/12 10:41 PM EDT
Republicans have sought to cut hundreds of millions of dollars slated for security at U.S. embassies and consulates since gaining control of the House in 2011.
Democrats enacted $1.803 billion for embassy security, construction and maintenance for fiscal 2010, when they still controlled the Senate and House. After Republicans took control of the House and picked up six Senate seats, Congress reduced the enacted budget to $1.616 billion in fiscal 2011, and to $1.537 billion for 2012.
The administration requested $1.801 billion for security, construction and maintenance for fiscal 2012; House Republicans countered with a proposal to cut spending to $1.425 billion. The House agreed to increase it to $1.537 billion after negotiations with the Senate.
The administration requested $1.654 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program for fiscal 2012. House Republicans proposed funding the program at $1.557 billion. Congress eventually enacted $1.591 billion after the Senate weighed in.
For fiscal 2013, the administration requested $2.15 billion in funding for the worldwide security protection program, a larger increase from the previous year. The House countered with a proposal to increase the program to $1.934 billion.
Embassy security funding will be reduced further if automatic spending cuts established by the 2011 Budget Control Act take place as scheduled. Under the so-called sequestration process, embassy security, construction and maintenance funding would shrink by $129 million, or 8.2 percent."
http://thehill.com/homenews/ho...
WTF do electric car chargers have to do with security? Do you imagine that embassies must have "perfect" security and only then are the employees allowed to have chairs?
Well let's look at it from an IT pov shall we? You'r UID is low enough you should get it. Imagine you've got two satellite offices, one is in a relatively stable, secure area where you can get away with simple keypad lockouts and the occasional guard. The other location is in a shit hole, there's roving bands of thugs and not only do you have heavy security you also have all the existing security.
Now your nice safe office in order to look trendy in their new hip area wants 143 cappuccino and espresso machines, because that'll make them look good. And your other office wants more on the ground bodies and further hardening of the existing security measure to make sure your hardware is secure. So you decide that trendy and hip is the way to go, your other office gets trashed, people get killed and you just say "well there wasn't any money to help with that..." while you just finished spending several hundred thousand dollars for cappuccino and espresso machines.
So the money was there, it could have been reallocated by dispensation to the security fund. But instead of doing that you're now responsible for the deaths of a couple of people, destruction of your hardware and other issues. And your response is: "what difference does it make?"
except that the security budget is specifically allocated by the house and senate.
You mean besides the part where the Benghazi embassy requested extra security and she along with her underlings said there wasn't any money for it? But they could come up with the money for electric car chargers for the embassies in Europe?
to begin with, the benghazi post wasn't an embassy. It wasn't even a consulate. That speaks to the mastery of the details possessed by the Hillary lynchers, and and also to the priority level of attending to security there. but since we're discussing budgets for security:
"GOP cuts to embassy security draw scrutiny, jabs from Democrats
By Alexander Bolton - 09/18/12 10:41 PM EDT
Republicans have sought to cut hundreds of millions of dollars slated for security at U.S. embassies and consulates since gaining control of the House in 2011. Democrats enacted $1.803 billion for embassy security, construction and maintenance for fiscal 2010, when they still controlled the Senate and House. After Republicans took control of the House and picked up six Senate seats, Congress reduced the enacted budget to $1.616 billion in fiscal 2011, and to $1.537 billion for 2012.
The administration requested $1.801 billion for security, construction and maintenance for fiscal 2012; House Republicans countered with a proposal to cut spending to $1.425 billion. The House agreed to increase it to $1.537 billion after negotiations with the Senate.
The administration requested $1.654 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program for fiscal 2012. House Republicans proposed funding the program at $1.557 billion. Congress eventually enacted $1.591 billion after the Senate weighed in.
For fiscal 2013, the administration requested $2.15 billion in funding for the worldwide security protection program, a larger increase from the previous year. The House countered with a proposal to increase the program to $1.934 billion.
Embassy security funding will be reduced further if automatic spending cuts established by the 2011 Budget Control Act take place as scheduled. Under the so-called sequestration process, embassy security, construction and maintenance funding would shrink by $129 million, or 8.2 percent." http://thehill.com/homenews/ho... CNN Anchor Soledad O’Brien: “Is it true that you voted to cut the funding for embassy security?”
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah): “Absolutely. Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have 15,0000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in touch economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.” http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2012/10/10/exp-point-chaffetz-two.cnn.html
16 US embassies and/or consulates were attacked during GW Bush's presidency. 60 people were killed. There were NO congressional hearings. Double standard, much?
also, there was that weird iraq thing, but hey, no use crying over spilt milk.
Slashdot Mirror
have you bought a new car lately? with a 7,000 page manual that tells you things like the secret combination of keys to press to alter the speed-sensitive volume adjustment on the sound system, or how to calibrate the compass in the rear view mirror to optimize it for your particular location? (that's a real thing, btw)
or the weird little 500 page, 2 by 3 inch manual thagt comes with your new smartphone; meanwhile you can't get any sort of instructions for 90% of the apps you might want to use.
what a world, what a world....
we had well designed UX experiences
Nope, a good UX is pure fantasy. I'm still waiting for one.
They all try to put too many options together. They all still have a pile of "miscellaneous" functions that all get lumped together. They still all use the technical / marketing terms of the designers (rather than the real-world experience descriptions of actual users). Almost none have sensible default settings or logically connected changes and it's a rarity to see them structured in any sort of workflow: good or bad. They always seem to be designed "logically" (captain) rather than with the most frequently used options the least number (i.e. 1) key-click away. And the layout of the remote control needed to operate them is frankly, awful.
reminds me of the days when the TVs would come with an "automatic picture improvement" button, or similar, which would just lock out the brightness, contrast, color, and tint controls and set them all to fixed midrange values. I'm looking at one of those sets right now, an old Sony Trinitron.
"The fact is that Russia is a hostile nation, it's invaded Ukraine, and it's invaded Georgia, it can't pretend it's an innocent bystander that's merely hard done by as you're implying it is."
like the time they invaded Iraq under the premise that it represented an imminent danger to them.
One word: Drones.
http://www.dronetonetool.com/
People always say this but the reality is no one knows how global security is going to change through the lifetime of an aircraft and aircraft themselves are evolved to deal with new and emerging threats. People said the same about Europe's Eurofighter Typhoon 5 years ago, and yet it's already having to intercept 4.5th Gen Russian fighters that are infringing European airspace in the Baltic.
In many ways though it kind of works like nuclear deterrents and MAD; in large part the reason we don't have to send things like F-22s up against Su-37s is precisely because Russia knows if it forces such a confrontation it'll lose. The very fact we have the qualitative edge is in itself a reason for not having to use it. If we ditch it because we believe we don't need it, then we're more likely to find that we need it, only then we wont have it and we'll have already lost.
good point, actually. the effectiveness of any weapon causes future conflicts to avoid use of said weapon.
Its unlikely it will ever engage another jet in a combat role, countries we fight are too poor for jets, countries with jets have too much power to attack and know we are too powerful to attack too or our allies.
Its ready to be a glorified bomber, bombing mostly suspected terrorists.
Its unlikely it will ever engage another jet in a combat role, countries we fight are too poor for jets, countries with jets have too much power to attack and know we are too powerful to attack too or our allies.
Its ready to be a glorified bomber, bombing mostly suspected terrorists.
if the US air force, army, and/or navy ever get into a fight with each other, though, they can each be secure in the knowledge that they will not be at a disadvantage in hardware superiority.
...the combat readiness of an aircraft can really only be determined by actual combat.
What's worse, a system like the F-35 that relies so heavily on computers won't be tested adequately until it goes up against a first world power and their various jamming capabilities, and adversaries with 5th Generation fighters.
Shooting fish in a barrel over the Middle East doesn't really count.
so far, the f-35 has kind of been the Joint Strike Paperweight in testing.
"first to Red Flag exercises, then as a "theater security package" to Europe and the Asia-Pacific. " They transposed "security theater."
"call in an air strike on seat H35, there's a guy using his cell phone"
And oh you didn't establish using a table saw leads to the presence of sawdust even though it is obvious
NB: Whoosh? A few years ago I'd have assumed this post was a joke, but the way the world is today its hard to be sure, so just in case...
If you'd never seen a table saw before, you'd have no reason to know that it produced sawdust. Fortunately, you just have to saw some wood to see the sawdust spurting out and bingo, you have evidence. Better still, that's reproducible evidence.
Obvious things are only obvious because the evidence is there for the asking.
Unfortunately, you can't watch someone floss their teeth and see the health benefits happening. You won't know for years - and the result could depend on a whole lot of other things like diet, brushing habits and general health. If you don't do some sort of research - which doesn't just have to be clinical trials, but does have to be rational, systematic and evidence-based - you have no way of knowing. You also have to consider that people who floss regularly might also have other good health and personal hygiene habits.
Of course, without research, you also have no idea whether flossing might even be harmful - its easy to come up with hypotheses that it could abrade the teeth, damage the gums, prevent "good" bacteria, damage fillings or make people feel better about eating sugary foods. Frankly, without research, those theories are just as good as the ones saying it is beneficial.
But then, we all know that doing something tedious and unpleasant must be good for us, because, well, its just obvious...
exactly right. finding the benefits of something which only helps decades later is really hard. even just to find the same people is difficult, even if you are continuously following them. then there is the problem that over time people's habits change; so even if your test and control groups were perfectly matched at the beginning, 40 years from now they are likely to have picked up/dropped/changed habits which may affect the result (dental health in this case); even more tricky, when the precise thing you want to study is usually correlated with a whole bunch of other relevant factors. i.e., people who floss are more likely to be meticulous in general, and particularly regarding health; so even if the two groups are well matched on all those factors at first, there is kind of a steady pull that trends to separate them over time.
then, with something like flossing, you only have the person's individual recall as evidence, unless you are actually watching them every night for 40 years. especially where something is considered "morally correct" people will overestimate their participation, even in anonymous surveys; they'll say they floss almost every day when the fact might be that they do so maybe 50% of the time, and thoroughly believe what they're saying.
and: flossing is actually quite a large spectrum of behavior. do they use waxed floss, or unwaxed, or teflon, or ultrafine, or dental tape? are there differences between brand? does mint flavor conceivably make a difference? does mint flavor make a difference in how often they floss? do they floss "correctly" and effectively, or do they just buzz through it as fast as they can and do a crummy job? and again, all of these variables can change over the period of the study.
these kinds of complications are the same reasons why there is still no hard evidence on, for instance, coffee; is it good for you, bad for you, indifferent?
in fact, in retrospect, the success of the first big example of this kind of study, cigarette smoking, in producing an unequivocal result is a tribute to how huge an effect that was, and sort of gave public health folks an overoptimistic picture of what population studies would be able to pick up.
and, of course, you still have people who insist that the link between cigarette smoking and health is false. (one of them is running for US vice president right now, for instance).
oh, i thought you said MENTAL floss. Never mind.
On the upside, if Australia keeps moving in my direction, I will be able to drive directly to Australia in 172,085,760 years or so. Save me a plane ticket! Now I just have to find something to keep me occupied till then.
we must start now to build a wall to keep this nation of former convicts from crossing our borders. when australia sends us their continent, they do not send us their best.
Geez, those Kangaroos are the worst, they can't navigate and they are constantly being distracted by their pouch potatoes. Wombats on the other hand... http://www.flyingwombat.com/th...
wombats; not bats, and with no womb.
Standing upside down all-day long does do funny things to people.
What did you think Max was Mad about?
Actually, self-driving cars don't need any location information at all to avoid accidents.
It's not like a GPS can tell them if a light they're approaching is red or green, if there's a car in front of them, or if that hypothetical car is currently slamming on its brakes. It can give them an idea of where to turn, but it can't tell them if there's a pedestrian, a car, a wall, a lake, a big gaping sinkhole in the road, a flooded section, or something like that in the spot where it wants them to turn.
Indeed. human drivers have driven for a long time, and many still drive, without access to GPS info, while still avoiding accidents.
So does this mean that the "infinity" between centimetres and infinitesimal is larger than the infinity between nanometres and infinitesimal?
No. You can subtract a constant from infinity, subtract any finite number from them, and the size of the infinity doesn't change.
and of course, (for those who are not familiar with the concept) the countable infinity, such as the aforementioned infinitely long line of people, equivalent to the integers or the whole numbers, is infinitely smaller than the real numbers, an infinity of which exists between any two integers.
You are confused. I'm not taking about just insulting people, that's fine. I'm taking about creating an atmosphere were a reasonable person would be justifiably afraid.
The problem is defining terms like "justifiably afraid" and "reasonable person" are almost impossible to do in a legal sense and such laws tend to incredibly broad and open to interpretation.
Some Christians believe they are "justifiably afraid" because their kids walk by liquor stores or a gay club on their way home from school. The KKK believes they are "justifiably afraid" of black protests. Some people think they are "justifiably afraid" because people can carry a holstered pistol without wearing a badge. And "reasonable person" in the eyes of most people means "people who think like me".
It wouldn't be acceptable to point a gun at someone's head without pulling the trigger. No physical harm done, but it's a clear threat and would justify a response.
That's a direct threat of violence, which is NOT acceptable. There's a difference between someone saying "You should be shot" and "I'm going to shoot you".
and yet, almost every law includes a "reasonable person" provision. from traffic laws to homicide.
And nanny states are happy to turn on their own citizens eventually.
Really? Which nanny states are you thinking of?
Sweden? Denmark? -- No turning on citizens. Just improving their lot. Singapore? Yes it did ban bubble gum, but on the list of "turning on your own citizens" that seems pretty minor. UK? Yes it does have the same Orwellian surveillance of its own citizens as the US, but that's not really "turning on your own citizens" and it's not really associated with nanny states.
who can forget the tyranny of canada, whose suffering citizens are forced to not undergo bankruptcy because they get severely ill and their insurance maxes out?
Pointless semantic games. That aside, bigotry is a natural property of mankind and will exist as long as people do. Get over it.
yes, also defecating in common public spaces is a natural property of mankind and will exist as long as people do. Get over it.
Hateful speech is not a crime. This is not the EU. You can be a NeoNazi and drape your house in swastikas if you want. It's only a hate crime once you start gassing people or telling other people to do so.
like:
"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families."
or “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.”
or “I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell ya.”
or “Maybe he should have been roughed up because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.”
So saying things some people don't like (while lacking any immediate calls for violence)... is now considered a hate crime?
Truly the SJW's have won the cultural war... if you are right... which thankfully you are not.
good point. trump is only spouting support for hate crimes and war crimes. they won't be actual hate crimes until his supporters start taking his advice as incitement.
Give it up. You will never win with any argument of logic or fact when they excuse political incompetence with Bush did it. We know for a fact that help wasn't sent for fears of the political fallout but that isn't important. Sitting on your hands and doing nothing while American officials are being killed is somehow justifiably because under different circumstances Bush did it.
You will never win with any argument of logic or fact with somebody whose definition of fact includes "We know for a fact that help wasn't sent for fears of the political fallout".
WTF do electric car chargers have to do with security? Do you imagine that embassies must have "perfect" security and only then are the employees allowed to have chairs?
Well let's look at it from an IT pov shall we? You'r UID is low enough you should get it. Imagine you've got two satellite offices, one is in a relatively stable, secure area where you can get away with simple keypad lockouts and the occasional guard. The other location is in a shit hole, there's roving bands of thugs and not only do you have heavy security you also have all the existing security.
Now your nice safe office in order to look trendy in their new hip area wants 143 cappuccino and espresso machines, because that'll make them look good. And your other office wants more on the ground bodies and further hardening of the existing security measure to make sure your hardware is secure. So you decide that trendy and hip is the way to go, your other office gets trashed, people get killed and you just say "well there wasn't any money to help with that..." while you just finished spending several hundred thousand dollars for cappuccino and espresso machines.
So the money was there, it could have been reallocated by dispensation to the security fund. But instead of doing that you're now responsible for the deaths of a couple of people, destruction of your hardware and other issues. And your response is: "what difference does it make?"
except that the security budget is specifically allocated by the house and senate.
excuse the afterthefact support for my statement by replying to myself, please.
"GOP cuts to embassy security draw scrutiny, jabs from Democrats
By Alexander Bolton - 09/18/12 10:41 PM EDT
Republicans have sought to cut hundreds of millions of dollars slated for security at U.S. embassies and consulates since gaining control of the House in 2011.
Democrats enacted $1.803 billion for embassy security, construction and maintenance for fiscal 2010, when they still controlled the Senate and House. After Republicans took control of the House and picked up six Senate seats, Congress reduced the enacted budget to $1.616 billion in fiscal 2011, and to $1.537 billion for 2012.
The administration requested $1.801 billion for security, construction and maintenance for fiscal 2012; House Republicans countered with a proposal to cut spending to $1.425 billion. The House agreed to increase it to $1.537 billion after negotiations with the Senate.
The administration requested $1.654 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program for fiscal 2012. House Republicans proposed funding the program at $1.557 billion. Congress eventually enacted $1.591 billion after the Senate weighed in.
For fiscal 2013, the administration requested $2.15 billion in funding for the worldwide security protection program, a larger increase from the previous year. The House countered with a proposal to increase the program to $1.934 billion.
Embassy security funding will be reduced further if automatic spending cuts established by the 2011 Budget Control Act take place as scheduled. Under the so-called sequestration process, embassy security, construction and maintenance funding would shrink by $129 million, or 8.2 percent." http://thehill.com/homenews/ho...
WTF do electric car chargers have to do with security? Do you imagine that embassies must have "perfect" security and only then are the employees allowed to have chairs?
Well let's look at it from an IT pov shall we? You'r UID is low enough you should get it. Imagine you've got two satellite offices, one is in a relatively stable, secure area where you can get away with simple keypad lockouts and the occasional guard. The other location is in a shit hole, there's roving bands of thugs and not only do you have heavy security you also have all the existing security.
Now your nice safe office in order to look trendy in their new hip area wants 143 cappuccino and espresso machines, because that'll make them look good. And your other office wants more on the ground bodies and further hardening of the existing security measure to make sure your hardware is secure. So you decide that trendy and hip is the way to go, your other office gets trashed, people get killed and you just say "well there wasn't any money to help with that..." while you just finished spending several hundred thousand dollars for cappuccino and espresso machines.
So the money was there, it could have been reallocated by dispensation to the security fund. But instead of doing that you're now responsible for the deaths of a couple of people, destruction of your hardware and other issues. And your response is: "what difference does it make?"
except that the security budget is specifically allocated by the house and senate.
You mean besides the part where the Benghazi embassy requested extra security and she along with her underlings said there wasn't any money for it? But they could come up with the money for electric car chargers for the embassies in Europe?
to begin with, the benghazi post wasn't an embassy. It wasn't even a consulate. That speaks to the mastery of the details possessed by the Hillary lynchers, and and also to the priority level of attending to security there.
but since we're discussing budgets for security:
"GOP cuts to embassy security draw scrutiny, jabs from Democrats
By Alexander Bolton - 09/18/12 10:41 PM EDT
Republicans have sought to cut hundreds of millions of dollars slated for security at U.S. embassies and consulates since gaining control of the House in 2011.
Democrats enacted $1.803 billion for embassy security, construction and maintenance for fiscal 2010, when they still controlled the Senate and House. After Republicans took control of the House and picked up six Senate seats, Congress reduced the enacted budget to $1.616 billion in fiscal 2011, and to $1.537 billion for 2012.
The administration requested $1.801 billion for security, construction and maintenance for fiscal 2012; House Republicans countered with a proposal to cut spending to $1.425 billion. The House agreed to increase it to $1.537 billion after negotiations with the Senate.
The administration requested $1.654 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program for fiscal 2012. House Republicans proposed funding the program at $1.557 billion. Congress eventually enacted $1.591 billion after the Senate weighed in.
For fiscal 2013, the administration requested $2.15 billion in funding for the worldwide security protection program, a larger increase from the previous year. The House countered with a proposal to increase the program to $1.934 billion.
Embassy security funding will be reduced further if automatic spending cuts established by the 2011 Budget Control Act take place as scheduled. Under the so-called sequestration process, embassy security, construction and maintenance funding would shrink by $129 million, or 8.2 percent."
http://thehill.com/homenews/ho...
CNN Anchor Soledad O’Brien: “Is it true that you voted to cut the funding for embassy security?”
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah): “Absolutely. Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have 15,0000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in touch economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2012/10/10/exp-point-chaffetz-two.cnn.html
16 US embassies and/or consulates were attacked during GW Bush's presidency. 60 people were killed. There were NO congressional hearings. Double standard, much?
also, there was that weird iraq thing, but hey, no use crying over spilt milk.