I'm not sure why it's an outrage. We got at lot of technological advances out of going to the moon. Nothing on the moon was going to directly pay back the investment, we knew that beforehand, but I think we got plenty of value out of it. Going back would be in many ways a waste compared to investing the money in the other things I mentioned, at least in my opinion.
And "poetic justice" is not a good reason to spend tax dollars or let private entities appropriate historical relics.
Why do they even bother crying "false allegations." Are their consumers out there who were awaiting the results of this trial to determine if they were going to buy an iphone or an android? Are stock brokers saying "SELL SELL SELL... wait... Oh, nevermind, apple says the court is wrong. We don't need to dump the stock."
Fitting, but not one that I think any of us would want to happen. I'd rather tax dollars be spent more higher pursuits than racing to preserve a historic relic from some rich asshole. Just tell him he CAN'T steal it, arrest him if and when he does, and spend them money you saved on research into cancer, a space elevator, or something worthwhile.
Bit of a straw-man argument there. No one is saying "Don't tolerate people who oppose gay marriage." They seem to be saying "This guy opposes gay marriage, if you approve of gay marriage, maybe you don't want to give him your money."
Ford and Disney, being dead, aren't really parallels. Chick-fil-a is a better parallel: the accusation there was that money you spent on chicken sandwiches was going to suppress gay rights, so you might not want to eat there.
Totally fine for the CEO of chick-fil-a to dislike, even hate gay people, totally legal for him to personally give money to lobbying groups to outlaw gay marriage. But I don't have to give my money to a homophobe, let alone give them money that is then going to be used against causes I'm for. It's not at all ad-homenim.
There are sensible people in both parties. Vote for them in the primaries and we'll have two sensible parties. Fail to vote in the primaries, and you may as well not bother voting in the general election either.
I can't remember the last time I heard health insurance companies promising to give people due process before they denied coverage for their claims. Plus I can vote for or against politicians. I suppose I could vote with my wallet against bad health insurance plans, but as that would realistically require changing jobs, I'm not too optimistic about that doing anything.
Well, obviously you need to correct for population or else LA and New York are far and away the most dangerous cities out there. In 2011, Chicago had a population of 2,703,713. New Orleans had a population of 346,974. Do the math. Or don't actually, one of the wiki articles I linked to already did. Per 100,000 residents, New Orleans had 57.6 murders, while Chicago had 15.9. The chart is correct.
Your other point is also a real failure to grasp numbers. 506 murders in 2012 is still down significantly from the nineties.
When businesses and their employees can arm themselves, they tend to bring jobs and wealth.
Well, no, that's still simplistic. The South Side isn't the South Side simply because businesses can't do business there due to gun control. A more likely explanation is that the South Side is the way it is because corrupt politicians see an advantage to keeping it that way, or at least no advantage in cleaning it up. And neither do the citizens of the rest of Chicago for that matter. There's a sentiment among some that fixing the South Side will simply raise crime everywhere else in the city.
And honestly, the laziest way to fix the South Side would be to displace everyone who is there now to a new ghetto. So you can be sure that's exactly what would happen in Chicago rather than, say, improving schools, creating higher paying jobs in the area, or changing the culture of violence. Not that I know how one would do any of the better fixes anyway.
However, there will be cases that deal with actual state secrets.
I'm honestly having a hard time picturing what those cases would be. I could see the need for secret courts if one assumes that the very existence of a spy program to listen to foreign terrorists' cell phone calls is a secret. But that's idiotic. The terrorists know we're trying to spy on them. We know that they know. Even before Snowden or Binney. Al Quaeda has been acting covertely since before we actually WERE listening. They weren't holding public meetings in Sudan to discuss the best ways to attack the US.
Regular courts deal with things that need to be kept secret: the names and addresses of witnesses against criminals isn't published in a "People with a price on their heads weekly" magazine. Regular non-secret courts can handle secrets. They won't be outing informants.
Lastly, the pointless secrecy is massively counterproductive. Leaks are going to happen if you make it a moral obligation for someone to report it as you do with secret courts and clearly perverting justice. It seems clear to me that the leaks are going to be more dangerous than you'd have with non-secret courts. The Manning leak had, if I recall, actual sensitive information that regular courts would have likely kept secret, such as informant identities.
I'm not suggesting gun control is the cause of that, just pointing out that it's a purely manufactured crisis. Chicago isn't among the top 50 most dangerous cities in the world. New Orleans has four times the murders Chicago does. San Pedro Sula has TEN times as many murders. Chicago isn't as safe as, say, rural Japan, but it's not "dangerous" compared to most other places in the US. More people die of texting while driving than die by guns in Chicago.
Simple things like increasing or decreasing the number of guns isn't going to really affect crime rates unless you go to extremes. Successfully eliminate the vast majority of guns or arm everyone and then you'll see changes in crime, either for the better or worse I don't claim to know. Debating concealed carry laws or waiting periods is a waste of time. As you said, criminals don't follow laws. And both sides of gang wars are armed, yet it's not proving a deterrence to violence. Suggesting that more guns = lower crime assumes that criminals will act rationally. Kids in gangs certainly don't act rationally.
True. But at least with android, you can be sure it's limited by hardware, as opposed to the manufacturer artificially deciding that your device is now obsolete.
I don't think in your example that the researcher should be sent to jail. Maybe the homeowners could sue him in a civil suit, but the federal government shouldn't be sending him away for noting that someone left the door unlocked and open.
He also broke a gag order. A gag order which sounds like it was intended to bully and bankrupt him into submission.
Just throwing this out there for someone with more legal insight than me: how is it that gag orders are justified when there's not a fear that one of the witnesses is going to get shot by the mob?
Just before Edward Snowden became a world famous whistleblower he answered an extensive catalog of questions.
That includes the question about stuxnet. Doesn't address how he knows it, but " lying in a desperate attempt to stay in the news" doesn't fit since this came out before he was in the news.
Are you putting "The NSA spying on everything you type into a computer" and "SOPA and other attempts to kill off the internet" in the same league as "Google not showing guns in their online store?"
Am I missing something here? Did google become the only way to buy guns? Do you have a constitutional right to get the most relevant search results from every search engine out there when it comes to guns? Was the NSA right the first time when they promised they don't do any spying ever and were SOPA's proponents right when they said they thought no, it would never cause slashdot, reddit, and basically every other internet site out there to shut down?
You're not indulging in selective outrage, you're just a moron.
If some 30 year old is seeding copies of the latest Pixar movie off his work computer and gets fired, the EFF will be in there faster than you can say Stallman.
In what universe is that not a civil liberties case?
Jesus, don't call it in the fucking air. At the very least, don't call it FOR THE OTHER SIDE. Cynicism here does nothing but rationalize not doing anything to stop it. "losses which will occur in the future" if everyone who should be standing up to it says "Ah, it's going to happen eventually, fuck it."
CISPA was a big win. No, they didn't stop it forever, but if you expected that to happen you're an idiot. What was the EFF supposed to do? Murder every CEO who wanted something similar to it, murder every lobbyist who would take their money, and murder every legislator who would take their meetings? Maintaining freedom is an active process, not a one time thing.
This is not me shooting the messenger either. What you're doing is more akin to a football player in a close game screaming "We're going to lose! Repent! Defeat is inevitable! We can't win, they're going to hurt us, we may as well forfeit because our QB sucks!!!"
(Note that I never played football, but I'm pretty sure that's a good way to help the other team win)
I don't have a problem with sustainable practices, because that will be better for all concerned, but lets steer clear of justifying it with Gaianism crap.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure why it's an outrage. We got at lot of technological advances out of going to the moon. Nothing on the moon was going to directly pay back the investment, we knew that beforehand, but I think we got plenty of value out of it. Going back would be in many ways a waste compared to investing the money in the other things I mentioned, at least in my opinion.
And "poetic justice" is not a good reason to spend tax dollars or let private entities appropriate historical relics.
Except they haven't in this case. Anyway, the damage is done: they're already backing away from clean relatively safe nuclear power.
Why do they even bother crying "false allegations." Are their consumers out there who were awaiting the results of this trial to determine if they were going to buy an iphone or an android? Are stock brokers saying "SELL SELL SELL... wait... Oh, nevermind, apple says the court is wrong. We don't need to dump the stock."
Fitting, but not one that I think any of us would want to happen. I'd rather tax dollars be spent more higher pursuits than racing to preserve a historic relic from some rich asshole. Just tell him he CAN'T steal it, arrest him if and when he does, and spend them money you saved on research into cancer, a space elevator, or something worthwhile.
Bit of a straw-man argument there. No one is saying "Don't tolerate people who oppose gay marriage." They seem to be saying "This guy opposes gay marriage, if you approve of gay marriage, maybe you don't want to give him your money."
Ford and Disney, being dead, aren't really parallels. Chick-fil-a is a better parallel: the accusation there was that money you spent on chicken sandwiches was going to suppress gay rights, so you might not want to eat there.
Totally fine for the CEO of chick-fil-a to dislike, even hate gay people, totally legal for him to personally give money to lobbying groups to outlaw gay marriage. But I don't have to give my money to a homophobe, let alone give them money that is then going to be used against causes I'm for. It's not at all ad-homenim.
There are sensible people in both parties. Vote for them in the primaries and we'll have two sensible parties. Fail to vote in the primaries, and you may as well not bother voting in the general election either.
I can't remember the last time I heard health insurance companies promising to give people due process before they denied coverage for their claims. Plus I can vote for or against politicians. I suppose I could vote with my wallet against bad health insurance plans, but as that would realistically require changing jobs, I'm not too optimistic about that doing anything.
Well, obviously you need to correct for population or else LA and New York are far and away the most dangerous cities out there. In 2011, Chicago had a population of 2,703,713. New Orleans had a population of 346,974. Do the math. Or don't actually, one of the wiki articles I linked to already did. Per 100,000 residents, New Orleans had 57.6 murders, while Chicago had 15.9. The chart is correct.
Your other point is also a real failure to grasp numbers. 506 murders in 2012 is still down significantly from the nineties.
When businesses and their employees can arm themselves, they tend to bring jobs and wealth.
Well, no, that's still simplistic. The South Side isn't the South Side simply because businesses can't do business there due to gun control. A more likely explanation is that the South Side is the way it is because corrupt politicians see an advantage to keeping it that way, or at least no advantage in cleaning it up. And neither do the citizens of the rest of Chicago for that matter. There's a sentiment among some that fixing the South Side will simply raise crime everywhere else in the city.
And honestly, the laziest way to fix the South Side would be to displace everyone who is there now to a new ghetto. So you can be sure that's exactly what would happen in Chicago rather than, say, improving schools, creating higher paying jobs in the area, or changing the culture of violence. Not that I know how one would do any of the better fixes anyway.
However, there will be cases that deal with actual state secrets.
I'm honestly having a hard time picturing what those cases would be. I could see the need for secret courts if one assumes that the very existence of a spy program to listen to foreign terrorists' cell phone calls is a secret. But that's idiotic. The terrorists know we're trying to spy on them. We know that they know. Even before Snowden or Binney. Al Quaeda has been acting covertely since before we actually WERE listening. They weren't holding public meetings in Sudan to discuss the best ways to attack the US.
Regular courts deal with things that need to be kept secret: the names and addresses of witnesses against criminals isn't published in a "People with a price on their heads weekly" magazine. Regular non-secret courts can handle secrets. They won't be outing informants.
Lastly, the pointless secrecy is massively counterproductive. Leaks are going to happen if you make it a moral obligation for someone to report it as you do with secret courts and clearly perverting justice. It seems clear to me that the leaks are going to be more dangerous than you'd have with non-secret courts. The Manning leak had, if I recall, actual sensitive information that regular courts would have likely kept secret, such as informant identities.
Well, the number of gun homicides in Chicago ARE going down. And the murder rate in Chicago per capita is below that of Memphis and many other cities which seem to have less restrictive gun control.
I'm not suggesting gun control is the cause of that, just pointing out that it's a purely manufactured crisis. Chicago isn't among the top 50 most dangerous cities in the world. New Orleans has four times the murders Chicago does. San Pedro Sula has TEN times as many murders. Chicago isn't as safe as, say, rural Japan, but it's not "dangerous" compared to most other places in the US. More people die of texting while driving than die by guns in Chicago.
Simple things like increasing or decreasing the number of guns isn't going to really affect crime rates unless you go to extremes. Successfully eliminate the vast majority of guns or arm everyone and then you'll see changes in crime, either for the better or worse I don't claim to know. Debating concealed carry laws or waiting periods is a waste of time. As you said, criminals don't follow laws. And both sides of gang wars are armed, yet it's not proving a deterrence to violence. Suggesting that more guns = lower crime assumes that criminals will act rationally. Kids in gangs certainly don't act rationally.
One might argue that due to a clear conflict of interest, they perhaps shouldn't get votes.
When did "conflict of interest" become something that could disqualify you from voting?
Wait, so they were finding their temps, screening them, negotiating pay, and then having you work for a temp agency to work for them?
What would the temp agency do aside from take a part of your paycheck and tell you when you're no longer needed?
True. But at least with android, you can be sure it's limited by hardware, as opposed to the manufacturer artificially deciding that your device is now obsolete.
No, but you could update them yourself with ROMS from the community. Good luck doing that with iproducts that are no longer supported.
Next up: Bill_the_engineer thinks Snowden is a pasty-faced four eyed butt-head.
Unfortunately, now there's a precedent for sending the next whistleblower to prison, even if said next whistleblower was a saint.
I suppose that probably would have happened anyway, since somehow companies think that a scapegoat will distract from their security lapses.
I don't think in your example that the researcher should be sent to jail. Maybe the homeowners could sue him in a civil suit, but the federal government shouldn't be sending him away for noting that someone left the door unlocked and open.
He also broke a gag order. A gag order which sounds like it was intended to bully and bankrupt him into submission.
Just throwing this out there for someone with more legal insight than me: how is it that gag orders are justified when there's not a fear that one of the witnesses is going to get shot by the mob?
Just before Edward Snowden became a world famous whistleblower he answered an extensive catalog of questions.
That includes the question about stuxnet. Doesn't address how he knows it, but " lying in a desperate attempt to stay in the news" doesn't fit since this came out before he was in the news.
Are you putting "The NSA spying on everything you type into a computer" and "SOPA and other attempts to kill off the internet" in the same league as "Google not showing guns in their online store?"
Am I missing something here? Did google become the only way to buy guns? Do you have a constitutional right to get the most relevant search results from every search engine out there when it comes to guns? Was the NSA right the first time when they promised they don't do any spying ever and were SOPA's proponents right when they said they thought no, it would never cause slashdot, reddit, and basically every other internet site out there to shut down?
You're not indulging in selective outrage, you're just a moron.
If some 30 year old is seeding copies of the latest Pixar movie off his work computer and gets fired, the EFF will be in there faster than you can say Stallman.
In what universe is that not a civil liberties case?
Jesus, don't call it in the fucking air. At the very least, don't call it FOR THE OTHER SIDE. Cynicism here does nothing but rationalize not doing anything to stop it. "losses which will occur in the future" if everyone who should be standing up to it says "Ah, it's going to happen eventually, fuck it."
CISPA was a big win. No, they didn't stop it forever, but if you expected that to happen you're an idiot. What was the EFF supposed to do? Murder every CEO who wanted something similar to it, murder every lobbyist who would take their money, and murder every legislator who would take their meetings? Maintaining freedom is an active process, not a one time thing.
You list about four other losses. Summarize their full list of litigation if you're going to say they do nothing but lose.
This is not me shooting the messenger either. What you're doing is more akin to a football player in a close game screaming "We're going to lose! Repent! Defeat is inevitable! We can't win, they're going to hurt us, we may as well forfeit because our QB sucks!!!"
(Note that I never played football, but I'm pretty sure that's a good way to help the other team win)
Wow, it's almost like you didn't read the last of three lines in my post.
If nature does things in a "non-toxic" manner, it's only because other life adapts to the things that were toxic.
Case in point: oxygen in the atmosphere
I don't have a problem with sustainable practices, because that will be better for all concerned, but lets steer clear of justifying it with Gaianism crap.