I see your point. In this case, it's naturally the decent thing to do for the parent to clean up the mess. But in case of bigger things like causing someone's death, I feel there's no way a parent can be held responsible for something their kid did in such circumstances.
$5 to $10 monthly?? I'll stick with the adverts thank you very much. Even $0.01 a month would be too much because that means I have to pay $1 every nine years. And since the ads on Google don't bother me at all (and very occasionally even help me), I get no benefit from paying that money.
Agreed. And if it can be shown that the parent was negligent in his/her duty then I'm with you when you say the parents should pay. My point is that sometimes in spite of the best reasonable efforts of the parents to supervise their children and bring them up properly, very young children sometimes do stuff entirely on their own for which I feel no one can be held responsible.
IMHO parents can't be responsible for everything their children do. There's a limit to how much supervision is possible and short of leashing the kid, there will always be times when the child is doing his/her own thing. Since children aren't fully responsible for their actions either, I feel this type of thing classifies as an act of god...
I don't know how much you interact with your dog if you think he/she just needs to hump, eat and sleep. Maybe your dog is very old...but if not, you're either lying about being a dog owner, or you're not in close contact with them for longish periods.
There's no "they" who created the barrier. Everyone does what they want - different talents are required to be a good experimental physicist and the same is true for the theoretical physicists.
How would you rather have it?
That's why there are bad laws. Laws that are passed without debate and which need to be changed. Laws that are immoral.
The Indian government wanted real time access and refused to wait for even two days for RIM to give them what they wanted. You think they'll wait for a court order? India just doesn't have strict privacy laws.
That's what I'm saying. I'm saying that the Indian government wants the ability to access private communications without any sort of check or balance and without a court order. I've been following this story for some time now (since I live here) and I'm pretty sure of this.
Let's just say that as a rule of thumb, you give people as little power as possible. And if you have to give them power, you provide stringent checks, balances, redress mechanisms and transparency. The Indian government (my government) simply doesn't yet have those processes in place. Therefore I'm not willing to risk losing something as precious as my privacy if I have to trust a third party blindly.
I can see cases where the information will be abused but such risks are no match for the benefits.
Oh please. I'm an Indian and this is bullshit. What are the "benefits?" The chances of me dying in a terror attack are less than being hit by lightning. I'll take that risk and won't complain if I die thank you very much.
This is different because the Indian government wants the right to tap phones without a warrant. The whole privacy thing hasn't really been discussed in India yet.
No one's denying that complex machines are necessary for sentience. I'm just saying that we're machines and the fact that we exist means that machines displaying sentience can exist and therefore, we can theoretically build one.
Slashdot Mirror
I see your point. In this case, it's naturally the decent thing to do for the parent to clean up the mess. But in case of bigger things like causing someone's death, I feel there's no way a parent can be held responsible for something their kid did in such circumstances.
$5 to $10 monthly?? I'll stick with the adverts thank you very much. Even $0.01 a month would be too much because that means I have to pay $1 every nine years. And since the ads on Google don't bother me at all (and very occasionally even help me), I get no benefit from paying that money.
Agreed. And if it can be shown that the parent was negligent in his/her duty then I'm with you when you say the parents should pay. My point is that sometimes in spite of the best reasonable efforts of the parents to supervise their children and bring them up properly, very young children sometimes do stuff entirely on their own for which I feel no one can be held responsible.
IMHO parents can't be responsible for everything their children do. There's a limit to how much supervision is possible and short of leashing the kid, there will always be times when the child is doing his/her own thing. Since children aren't fully responsible for their actions either, I feel this type of thing classifies as an act of god...
I think getting run over by a 4 year old on a tricycle should be considered an act of god.
What if you get hit by lightning?
Getting run over by a five year old kid should be likened to an act of god. You get hit by lightning, it's no one's fault. Tough luck.
This is one of the reasons why I'm donating all my money after I die to create a fund that will help get us off this planet.
Wow - you waited before rubbing it in. I wish I had more friends like you.
I don't know how much you interact with your dog if you think he/she just needs to hump, eat and sleep. Maybe your dog is very old...but if not, you're either lying about being a dog owner, or you're not in close contact with them for longish periods.
You're right. Professor Chaos never wore tights!
I just checked them and I can't see the difference even when I try...
There's no "they" who created the barrier. Everyone does what they want - different talents are required to be a good experimental physicist and the same is true for the theoretical physicists.
How would you rather have it?
but what native Indian is going to fight this? They all want to be safe.
You'll be surprised. And not all of us prefer to cower in safety while everything we say and do is monitored.
That's why there are bad laws. Laws that are passed without debate and which need to be changed. Laws that are immoral.
The Indian government wanted real time access and refused to wait for even two days for RIM to give them what they wanted. You think they'll wait for a court order? India just doesn't have strict privacy laws.
So we first put the checks in place, and then give the powers. Fair enough?
That's what I'm saying. I'm saying that the Indian government wants the ability to access private communications without any sort of check or balance and without a court order. I've been following this story for some time now (since I live here) and I'm pretty sure of this.
Let's just say that as a rule of thumb, you give people as little power as possible. And if you have to give them power, you provide stringent checks, balances, redress mechanisms and transparency. The Indian government (my government) simply doesn't yet have those processes in place. Therefore I'm not willing to risk losing something as precious as my privacy if I have to trust a third party blindly.
I can see cases where the information will be abused but such risks are no match for the benefits.
Oh please. I'm an Indian and this is bullshit. What are the "benefits?" The chances of me dying in a terror attack are less than being hit by lightning. I'll take that risk and won't complain if I die thank you very much.
Or are you claiming that all governments everywhere will always lie to their citizens?
If they have the power to do so, they will. Therefore, we must not let them get that power.
This is different because the Indian government wants the right to tap phones without a warrant. The whole privacy thing hasn't really been discussed in India yet.
No one's denying that complex machines are necessary for sentience. I'm just saying that we're machines and the fact that we exist means that machines displaying sentience can exist and therefore, we can theoretically build one.
But aren't we doing the same thing with fossil fuels? 500 years from now there will be none left...
Look, we're machines too. Warm and wet machines. Do you have a theorem that says hard and cold machines can't be sentient?
What's the use? the FBI warning is much less effective than the the primitive warning of damnation given above!