Exactly. I find all this speech about banning speech to be quite offensive. And I'm sure many here would agree. So why does our opinion seem to not matter?
Yeah, even if it wasn't one of these devices from TFA, that's still a pretty stupid thing to do. For all you know there could be kiddie porn on it. And you're sticking that thing in your work PC with all the associated monitoring that comes with the territory?
So basically, what it sounds like, is that in addition to surge protectors for coax, ethernet, phone, and of course power (and anything else I am not aware of), we now also need surge protectors for USB ports.
What's more the gun lobby and their apologists will insist that such laws won't prevent 100% of such mishaps, conveniently overlooking the fact that by that standard there should be no laws against murder or robbery.
Laws requiring certain things be done to guns are preventative laws, while laws against murder and robbery are.. for lack of a better word, non-preventative. That is, laws against murder and robbery aren't there to keep murders and robberies from happening, they are there so that we have something with which to convict murderers and robbers. So it doesn't really seem fair to compare the two.
if you're drunk your judgment is impaired you dumb fuck. including your ability to gauge how impaired you actually are
Yes, and? What part of Gr8Apes' post was this supposed to be countering? Was it supposed to counter their implied belief that drunkenness should be measured via an actual assessment of whether you are truly impaired rather than via an arbitrary value? Because I'm fairly certain they meant assessment by some third, non-drunk party, rather than a self-assessment.
you don't drive after drinking. ever.
But for how long after?
quibbling about what actually constitutes being drunk is an immature douchebag attempting to avoid responsibility
The whole point of this "quibbling" as I see it, is that different amounts of alcohol affect different people differently, that over time the alcohol will be broken down and leave the body, and that you don't need to wait for a BAC of 0.00 to be able to safely operate heavy machinery.
They can claim that that clause means I cannot sue them all they want, and in some circumstances, they might be right. But a clause that says "thou shalt not sue" does not protect them from being sued over that very same clause. At least I would hope it doesn't. IANAL.
Hate can't exist if an infinite God of love exists.
So basically you are claiming that hate cannot exist if infinite love exists, right? Isn't that a bit like saying negative numbers cannot exist because there are infinite positive numbers?
so in other words the car is deciding the braking action, not you
"Braking action" can encompass a lot. When working correctly, all ABS does is disallow you from being able to lock your brakes. Nothing more, nothing less. But all this talk about ABS does make me wonder about something.
Before ABS, people pumped their brakes manually in order to avoid locking the brakes. After ABS, people needed to learn to adjust how they brake.
What sort of driving changes will people need to make when getting behind the wheel of a car with automatic emergency braking?
If the reason it is his problem is because there is shit everywhere, then it is his problem regardless of if he even owns a dog. In which case, why limit the tax to dog owners?
Out of your two examples, Hulu is the only service that still shows commercials to their paying subscribers. Netflix doesn't (yet).
What other streaming services are there that will still show ads to paying subscribers? Because the only other ones that I am aware of (Crunchyroll, Funimation's streaming service, and as far as I am aware, Amazon) all stream ad-free to their paying subscribers.
Whether it's cops sitting off the side of the highway at night with their lights turned off waiting for someone to speed by
I'm not sure that counts as deceptive. Dangerous sure. There have been a few times where, if I would have needed to swerve to avoid something, I would not have known to not swerve left. But deceptive?
You may find it fun to repeat yourself on things you've already been proved wrong on
Except they haven't yet been proved wrong. Yes, the things they bring up have already been proved wrong time and time again, but they personally were not aware of it.
I forget the exact details, but during the 2008 presidential election, I responded to a thread that I think was about Barack Obama's birth certificate being no business of ours, saying that if the constitution requires the president be a naturally born citizen, then for any presidential candidate, their birth certificate is our business. And the replies I got figuratively bit my head off. I did not know why my post elicited such anger, because at the time I did not know about the large group of people trying to get Obama disqualified on the grounds of his not being a naturally born citizen, and of their dismissal of his birth certificate, or whatever.
Like I said, I don't remember the exact details. But the point is, if I was a different person, then instead of trying to figure out why this hatred got directed towards me, I might've immediately sided with the "birthers" and ignored any future attempts at "proving" me wrong.
It may get annoying debunking the same myths again and again, but please remember that for the person bringing the myth to your attention, they may have just heard about it and are legitimately curious about why this thing they just heard about does not debunk AGW.
and that said view predates whatever is being "forced" on you.
What about converts to a religion? If someone were to convert to Pastafarianism, does that mean we can continue to forbid them from wearing their colander, just because they were not raised as a Pastafarian?
Aside from "because it suits them" there's no way the government can argue that twitter use is both within their jurisdiction and also that using twitter is 'external'.
Not saying it's right, but prosecuting a UK citizen for what they said on Twitter is not saying that Twitter is within UK jurisdiction, it is saying that regardless of where a UK citizen is, the UK citizen is within UK jurisdiction.
Now, when the UK government demands that Twitter do something about the offending post, that is them claiming that Twitter is within UK jurisdiction.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. I find all this speech about banning speech to be quite offensive. And I'm sure many here would agree. So why does our opinion seem to not matter?
SJWs, please help protect me from hearing anything I don't like!!
I don't like hearing all this speech about banning speech. Do you think they'd be willing to help me? :)
Tell you what, go do some research on Feminists and how they are destroying the American
Shouldn't that be your job? You're the one who made that claim after all.
Worse than that I'd say, she is apparently powerless to say "hey son, you've been on the computer all day. Let your sister on".
Yeah, even if it wasn't one of these devices from TFA, that's still a pretty stupid thing to do. For all you know there could be kiddie porn on it. And you're sticking that thing in your work PC with all the associated monitoring that comes with the territory?
So basically, what it sounds like, is that in addition to surge protectors for coax, ethernet, phone, and of course power (and anything else I am not aware of), we now also need surge protectors for USB ports.
What's more the gun lobby and their apologists will insist that such laws won't prevent 100% of such mishaps, conveniently overlooking the fact that by that standard there should be no laws against murder or robbery.
Laws requiring certain things be done to guns are preventative laws, while laws against murder and robbery are.. for lack of a better word, non-preventative. That is, laws against murder and robbery aren't there to keep murders and robberies from happening, they are there so that we have something with which to convict murderers and robbers. So it doesn't really seem fair to compare the two.
if you're drunk your judgment is impaired you dumb fuck. including your ability to gauge how impaired you actually are
Yes, and? What part of Gr8Apes' post was this supposed to be countering? Was it supposed to counter their implied belief that drunkenness should be measured via an actual assessment of whether you are truly impaired rather than via an arbitrary value? Because I'm fairly certain they meant assessment by some third, non-drunk party, rather than a self-assessment.
you don't drive after drinking. ever.
But for how long after?
quibbling about what actually constitutes being drunk is an immature douchebag attempting to avoid responsibility
The whole point of this "quibbling" as I see it, is that different amounts of alcohol affect different people differently, that over time the alcohol will be broken down and leave the body, and that you don't need to wait for a BAC of 0.00 to be able to safely operate heavy machinery.
They can claim that that clause means I cannot sue them all they want, and in some circumstances, they might be right. But a clause that says "thou shalt not sue" does not protect them from being sued over that very same clause. At least I would hope it doesn't. IANAL.
Hate can't exist if an infinite God of love exists.
So basically you are claiming that hate cannot exist if infinite love exists, right? Isn't that a bit like saying negative numbers cannot exist because there are infinite positive numbers?
(Disclaimer, I am an atheist)
so in other words the car is deciding the braking action, not you
"Braking action" can encompass a lot. When working correctly, all ABS does is disallow you from being able to lock your brakes. Nothing more, nothing less. But all this talk about ABS does make me wonder about something.
Before ABS, people pumped their brakes manually in order to avoid locking the brakes. After ABS, people needed to learn to adjust how they brake.
What sort of driving changes will people need to make when getting behind the wheel of a car with automatic emergency braking?
If the reason it is his problem is because there is shit everywhere, then it is his problem regardless of if he even owns a dog. In which case, why limit the tax to dog owners?
Out of your two examples, Hulu is the only service that still shows commercials to their paying subscribers. Netflix doesn't (yet).
What other streaming services are there that will still show ads to paying subscribers? Because the only other ones that I am aware of (Crunchyroll, Funimation's streaming service, and as far as I am aware, Amazon) all stream ad-free to their paying subscribers.
think the Fuck you pay me rule applies in this case
Is that the "fuck you, pay me" rule, the "fuck, you pay me" rule, or some other interpretation I hadn't thought of?
;)
Remember, "Let's eat, Grandma" and "Let's eat Grandma" mean two entirely different things.
My thoughts exactly. Isn't my car already doing this without the use of GPS? Is there something I am overlooking?
wouldn't prove if it exists [...] only that it gives a shit
But if it gives a shit, wouldn't that imply existence? Or is there a way for a non-existent thing to give a shit?
It's not that Sony haven't used that certificate to sign malware before
You are referring to the rootkit fiasco? Or something else?
Reproducing doesn't start with F. Whatever could the fourth F be? :) It's ok, we're all adults here, you can say it.
...fermions? ;)
Friendships.
Whether it's cops sitting off the side of the highway at night with their lights turned off waiting for someone to speed by
I'm not sure that counts as deceptive. Dangerous sure. There have been a few times where, if I would have needed to swerve to avoid something, I would not have known to not swerve left. But deceptive?
I love how everyone always says whatever "the hell" you want, like there's something intrinsically aggressive about this axiom
I don't follow. How does adding "the hell" imply aggressiveness?
You may find it fun to repeat yourself on things you've already been proved wrong on
Except they haven't yet been proved wrong. Yes, the things they bring up have already been proved wrong time and time again, but they personally were not aware of it.
I forget the exact details, but during the 2008 presidential election, I responded to a thread that I think was about Barack Obama's birth certificate being no business of ours, saying that if the constitution requires the president be a naturally born citizen, then for any presidential candidate, their birth certificate is our business. And the replies I got figuratively bit my head off. I did not know why my post elicited such anger, because at the time I did not know about the large group of people trying to get Obama disqualified on the grounds of his not being a naturally born citizen, and of their dismissal of his birth certificate, or whatever.
Like I said, I don't remember the exact details. But the point is, if I was a different person, then instead of trying to figure out why this hatred got directed towards me, I might've immediately sided with the "birthers" and ignored any future attempts at "proving" me wrong.
It may get annoying debunking the same myths again and again, but please remember that for the person bringing the myth to your attention, they may have just heard about it and are legitimately curious about why this thing they just heard about does not debunk AGW.
and that said view predates whatever is being "forced" on you.
What about converts to a religion? If someone were to convert to Pastafarianism, does that mean we can continue to forbid them from wearing their colander, just because they were not raised as a Pastafarian?
Electronic information is directly analogous to paper. Information is information regardless of how its stored.
Correct. And it is not my responsibility to teach the police the made-up language I used when writing on that paper.
Aside from "because it suits them" there's no way the government can argue that twitter use is both within their jurisdiction and also that using twitter is 'external'.
Not saying it's right, but prosecuting a UK citizen for what they said on Twitter is not saying that Twitter is within UK jurisdiction, it is saying that regardless of where a UK citizen is, the UK citizen is within UK jurisdiction.
Now, when the UK government demands that Twitter do something about the offending post, that is them claiming that Twitter is within UK jurisdiction.
My 2006 buick detects if someone is not wearing a seatbelt and turns off the passenger side airbag if no one is in the passenger seat
.....WHY??? Sure, it might be unnecessary if no one is sitting there, but what possible benefit is conferred by disabling an airbag?