So who forks up the cash for those 30%? O nm, its the same ones who already pay for almost all the amenities to the poor and/or lazy.
To note about the Czech Republic. I lived there for several years. It is hardly a capitol for quality of life. I know some doctors who prescribe smoking a pack a day to patients. Quality medical advice there.
Also note, they are so despite for doctors that if you go to medical school in the country, it is completely paid by the government on the condition you stay in the country for a few years, even if you are foreign.
Well put. To clairfy my original post, I do not intend to say there is NO right to privacy. Sure, there is. But to seek punitive damages when it is imposed like in this story (which doesnt really harm her in the slightest), is far beyond the role of government and the legal system. In cases where the breach of privacy causes actual harm, then there should be some reparation (such as financial information). In those cases, there are other legal issues at hand as well (fraud, unjust discrimination, slander/libel) so its not just a matter of legal action for breaking someones "right to privacy" which isnt legally codified.
What really pisses me off is the entitlement attitude people are getting. The government is supposed to give me XYZ rather than me working for it myself. The government is supposed to protect me from XYZ. This is just one example of that.
Besides in any case where the only damage is that a dirty little secret gets out, any legal action is only going to spread it around more. Usually is a better idea to just deal with it or move because you can sue something out of someones memory banks.
It seems to me that many Americans have become so self-centered with the constitutional rights we do have that we have started to claim rights we do not. There is no constitutional right to privacy. There is no constitutional right to having healthcare. There is no constitutional right to having a job. There is no constitutional right to an education. You want those things? You earn them. The "pursuit" has been dropped from "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
In direct reflection to this story, I completely fail to see why this is even a question. Nobody ever told her while starting a blog that she would be assured of staying annonymous. Sure, she can hope for that and try to keep it but that we have to help her.
Conducting a private investigation without a licence? Do we need a licence to do everything nowdays? That is seriously one of the dumbest things I have heard of in a long time. Oh noes! You cant look out the window anymore to find out who keeps ringing your doorbell and running away at 3am. Thats a private investigation!
Well, for mmo games you have to be online. Its kind of in the definition. So there isnt much of a problem with connecting to a remote server for some authentication. In fact, that authentication is tied to not only an account, but a paid account!
Thats what I meant. They have a list of like two dozen games that will register, but its not very long.
Another thing I would like to see is allowing to predownload something before buying it, or offer more of the one day free trials like they do for tf2.
As I remember, he stole it from his dad. Banning guns is stupider than banning games. If people are already willing to go on a rampage, you think a "guns-free zone" will stop them? Actually, most mass shootings occur with in such "safety" zones (malls, schools, etc). All that does is ensure the victims stay victims.
You might be right that porn is not the cause of rape, but it sure is the cause of many broken homes and dead beat dads. Infidelity is one of the major roots of divorce and finding your husband of X years is addicted to porn shakes many many marriages.
I hate porn. That said I dont think it is practical for a ban on it. If you want it, you will find it. I think it is a canker on those who participate however I dont have the right/authority to stop them. However, they also dont have the right/authority to force it on me. Thats where I draw the line. What you do at home is your problem, but forcefeeding me filth in movies/print/tv etc etc is against MY rights. So a ban on something is not the same as not allowing it in public or restricting access to it.
In respect for video games, again a complete ban is stupid. It can never work. However, restricting access is different. I support rating systems (as long as they are sensible) so people know what they are getting. Advertisements should be kept in check just like for anything else. You can hardly say that an ad for manhunt popping up during saturday morning commercials is a good thing.
Really, not all censorship is a bad thing. It should be structured so that offensive material is granted to those that want it, while others who dont want it dont have to put up with it. In that respect I guess its more like a rating system though.
Can they be trusted anymore than paper ballots? With those, all the loosing side has to do is keep pushing for more "recounts" until they win, ie Washington governorship a few years back.
"Time and again, information that is thrown out is false, even if it happens to be truth"
What in the world does that mean? If it is true, use it. If not, dont. If someone was framed by a bad cop, then you can prove that. Hearsay when sometimes true, sometimes not. Figure it out, dont just throw it all away.
I'm not saying beleive everything you hear no matter the source, just that all valid sources should be used instead of just ignoring them.
The way to prevent abuse as in the later where the police arbitrarily raid somewhere is not to give what ever they might find a free pass, but to heavily heavily punish the offending officers when they DONT find anything.
I personally despise the idea of "inadmissible" evidence. Optimally, the court is looking for the truth but an environment where critical information can be thrown out because of a technicality it is inherently flawed in finding said truth. The information that should be inadmissible is false information.
"Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, we are going to ignore the fact that the accused was found at the scene of the crime with the bloody knife in his hand standing over the victim on the grounds that the arresting officer hit him with his night stick too many times...."
Slashdot Mirror
So who forks up the cash for those 30%? O nm, its the same ones who already pay for almost all the amenities to the poor and/or lazy.
To note about the Czech Republic. I lived there for several years. It is hardly a capitol for quality of life. I know some doctors who prescribe smoking a pack a day to patients. Quality medical advice there.
Also note, they are so despite for doctors that if you go to medical school in the country, it is completely paid by the government on the condition you stay in the country for a few years, even if you are foreign.
Does this make sense to anyone? If it is english only, then it would seem to me that french is unavailable by definition.
Well put. To clairfy my original post, I do not intend to say there is NO right to privacy. Sure, there is. But to seek punitive damages when it is imposed like in this story (which doesnt really harm her in the slightest), is far beyond the role of government and the legal system. In cases where the breach of privacy causes actual harm, then there should be some reparation (such as financial information). In those cases, there are other legal issues at hand as well (fraud, unjust discrimination, slander/libel) so its not just a matter of legal action for breaking someones "right to privacy" which isnt legally codified.
What really pisses me off is the entitlement attitude people are getting. The government is supposed to give me XYZ rather than me working for it myself. The government is supposed to protect me from XYZ. This is just one example of that.
Besides in any case where the only damage is that a dirty little secret gets out, any legal action is only going to spread it around more. Usually is a better idea to just deal with it or move because you can sue something out of someones memory banks.
that last line should be "that doesnt mean we have to help her."
It seems to me that many Americans have become so self-centered with the constitutional rights we do have that we have started to claim rights we do not. There is no constitutional right to privacy. There is no constitutional right to having healthcare. There is no constitutional right to having a job. There is no constitutional right to an education. You want those things? You earn them. The "pursuit" has been dropped from "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
In direct reflection to this story, I completely fail to see why this is even a question. Nobody ever told her while starting a blog that she would be assured of staying annonymous. Sure, she can hope for that and try to keep it but that we have to help her.
Conducting a private investigation without a licence? Do we need a licence to do everything nowdays? That is seriously one of the dumbest things I have heard of in a long time. Oh noes! You cant look out the window anymore to find out who keeps ringing your doorbell and running away at 3am. Thats a private investigation!
I seriously hope there is no such law.
You must be from California...
I know, I said that. The problem is that they tend to be the same thing over and over (ie TF2) and not much for other stuff.
Well, for mmo games you have to be online. Its kind of in the definition. So there isnt much of a problem with connecting to a remote server for some authentication. In fact, that authentication is tied to not only an account, but a paid account!
Thats what I meant. They have a list of like two dozen games that will register, but its not very long.
Another thing I would like to see is allowing to predownload something before buying it, or offer more of the one day free trials like they do for tf2.
Steam still kicks their trash up and down the field. Just wish they would allow more association of retail keys to accounts.
Hey, I in ur baze iz an im taken ur domainz...
it is a type of infidelity yes.
As I remember, he stole it from his dad. Banning guns is stupider than banning games. If people are already willing to go on a rampage, you think a "guns-free zone" will stop them? Actually, most mass shootings occur with in such "safety" zones (malls, schools, etc). All that does is ensure the victims stay victims.
9. For that matter, so would Freud, who would instead blame it on the poor baking skills of the shooters mother, who never baked bread with him.
There, fixed that for ya.
You might be right that porn is not the cause of rape, but it sure is the cause of many broken homes and dead beat dads. Infidelity is one of the major roots of divorce and finding your husband of X years is addicted to porn shakes many many marriages.
I hate porn. That said I dont think it is practical for a ban on it. If you want it, you will find it. I think it is a canker on those who participate however I dont have the right/authority to stop them. However, they also dont have the right/authority to force it on me. Thats where I draw the line. What you do at home is your problem, but forcefeeding me filth in movies/print/tv etc etc is against MY rights. So a ban on something is not the same as not allowing it in public or restricting access to it.
In respect for video games, again a complete ban is stupid. It can never work. However, restricting access is different. I support rating systems (as long as they are sensible) so people know what they are getting. Advertisements should be kept in check just like for anything else. You can hardly say that an ad for manhunt popping up during saturday morning commercials is a good thing.
Really, not all censorship is a bad thing. It should be structured so that offensive material is granted to those that want it, while others who dont want it dont have to put up with it. In that respect I guess its more like a rating system though.
Is that a yellownetbook?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQR41h2jGoQ
No, he is advocating panicking at the sight of everything, ordinary and ordinary.
And why go out of your way to attack someones karma when it isn't a troll nor flamebait? Especially when it is pointing out a valid issue.
lol. We have some retarded mods today. First point given is a "overrated". How is that possible when it hasnt even been rated?
What do you mean? They won.
Can they be trusted anymore than paper ballots? With those, all the loosing side has to do is keep pushing for more "recounts" until they win, ie Washington governorship a few years back.
"Time and again, information that is thrown out is false, even if it happens to be truth"
What in the world does that mean? If it is true, use it. If not, dont.
If someone was framed by a bad cop, then you can prove that. Hearsay when sometimes true, sometimes not. Figure it out, dont just throw it all away.
I'm not saying beleive everything you hear no matter the source, just that all valid sources should be used instead of just ignoring them.
The way to prevent abuse as in the later where the police arbitrarily raid somewhere is not to give what ever they might find a free pass, but to heavily heavily punish the offending officers when they DONT find anything.
I personally despise the idea of "inadmissible" evidence. Optimally, the court is looking for the truth but an environment where critical information can be thrown out because of a technicality it is inherently flawed in finding said truth. The information that should be inadmissible is false information.
"Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, we are going to ignore the fact that the accused was found at the scene of the crime with the bloody knife in his hand standing over the victim on the grounds that the arresting officer hit him with his night stick too many times...."
I've been reading slashdot for years and have yet to ever go to goase. I'm not in a hurry to find out whatever is on there.