So you would see no problem in feeding people in homeless shelters bowls of boiled sawdust? There is no responsibility to feed people properly when you accept the responsibility to feed them?
What other things do you think you can do improperly after you've promised to do them?
In the context of this discussion, you said that McDonald's is "accepting responsibility to feed people" by offering free lunches.
If you opened a homeless shelter, and tried to feed people sawdust, that would not be morally wrong. It would be stupid, because nobody would eat it, but it wouldn't be wrong. There is no responsibility for you to "feed people properly" (whatever that means) just because you offered to feed them something.
Do you really not remember that this entire discussion is about McD giving free lunches to people who qualify for free lunches?
No, this discussion stemmed from a comment that if McDonald's offered free lunches, other restaurants would have to do the same or shut down; and I pointed out that we already have evidence that people are willing to pay a price premium for quality. Whether or not people who cannot afford to eat at McDonald's today would start eating the free lunches is really not relevant to that discussion.
I would be willing to agree that the McDonald's analogy is not a particularly good one, partly there's an awful lot more competition and choices in the restaurant space than in ISP coverage -- and people are already used to paying a premium for better-quality food.
Because when you are accepting responsibility for feeding people who cannot afford to feed themselves, you must also accept responsibility for feeding them properly.
False, of course.
Note also that "people who cannot afford to feed themselves" already do not eat at McDonald's.
But they do go to other places than McD that they can afford -- which they won't do when McD is free.
So your claim is that McD's will get 100% of the "don't care about food quality" market? They might -- but why should anyone care? The claim that there is no substantial market for quality food is obviously false, and there is no reason to think that all other restaurants, even those in the same price bracket, would disappear.
Other restaurants that specialize in crap food might go out of business. BFD.
...because there is simply not enough of a market for quality.
You do realize that in any major city, there are literally hundreds of restaurants that are much more expensive than McDonald's, and they stay in business because in reality there is a market for quality, right?
It certainly will, at high enough concentrations for a long enough time. But breathing exhaust gas won't prove that, because the carbon monoxide will kill you long before the CO2 becomes a problem.
Maybe you don't care but she's entitled to a different opinion.
She certainly does. She's even entitled to a different opinion on whether or not she should sue her parents. That doesn't mean that I'm not allowed to have an opinion.
I can get on board with the notion that suing might be overkill here but there is no objective reason for the parents to persist their behavior.
I don't disagree. Her parents should remove the pictures. But the original question was what should she do. Her father is evidently a jackass; she can't control that. In reality, it would be better for her, her parents, and everyone else if she were to let it go rather than going to the extreme of suing them.
OK, let's say she has a mental illness in which those photographs cause her a lot of distress.
If that is the case, then the correct option is still not to sue her parents. The correct option is to help her get the medical help she needs.
Of course, you're not going to agree with this, because you framed your answer in such a way as to imply that mentally ill people have no right to sue to have their rights respected.
There is no right to not be distressed, regardless of whether or not you are mentally ill.
You're telling me it's "absurd" for her to sue, and she should "Grow The Fuck Up (tm)". But you're not telling me what she should actually do. What choices does she have other than suing?
The obvious answer is to ignore it. Non-mentally-ill adults do not experience "emotional distress" over the fact that people may see some of their baby pictures.
Police wont do shit to stop you getting robbed. Best you can hope for is they turn up not too long after and give you a crime reference number so you can claim on your insurance if you have any. In America they might turn up quicker on the off chance they get to shoot someone.
I suggest you spend some time in a country that doesn't have a strong police presence and then re-think that statement. In a lot of countries around the world, if you have any significant possessions, you have to live inside of a cage to keep from getting robbed. In America that is the exception rather than the rule.
Congratulations, investors. Thanks to your shortsightedness, you've corralled Nintendo into making what will surely be a bad Mario platformer. This is how you kill the goose...
There's been no shortage of terrible Mario games over the years.
How do you propose hooking this phone to the car audio system now? Has to be wired as no car stereo supports this new format or are they doing both bluetooth and this new format?
It is exceedingly unlikely that they would be removing bluetooth support (and if they were, somebody would have mentioned it by now.) Presumably they will be supporting both.
Parent has the 2012 edition. You're probably on the 2013 edition like I am.
Mine is a 2012, and it still works pretty good. (I did have to "downgrade" from the updated Android version back to an older version of Cyanogenmod, though.) It's not useless by any stretch of the imagination; I use it almost every day.
I have started having problems with it occasionally crashing, which I suspect is hardware-related. If there's a new Nexus 7 when it finally bites the dust, I may get one.
Could we get all of the "accounts at X compromised" stories put into a dedicated section that we can filter out of the front page if we so desire?
I get that these are important to those people who are affected, but it's getting to the point where there's at least one, sometimes more, of these stories every day. There's nothing new to be said about the topic.
The point here is that the EU is punishing _Ireland_ for giving Apple that deal, and requiring Ireland to make Apple pay back taxes.
It requires some real mental contortions to paint grabbing 13 billion Euros from Apple as punishing Ireland. Ireland got what they wanted out of the deal already -- more tax revenue and jobs than they would have had otherwise. This is obviously an attempt to punish Apple.
Why do many of them need to be on the small screen in the first place? You are going to interface the camera with a computer at some point so why not offload the menus for the rarely/never used settings to a PC or tablet?
While not having used this camera, I'm not going to comment on the merits of its interface, I don't really see why you think that the mere existence of an interface on the camera to change these settings harms you. If these settings really don't need to be changed often (/ever), then bury them in some sort of "advanced settings" menu that you can then ignore. Yours is the same mentality that we see from a lot of UI "experts" -- they proclaim that the way they want to use a product is the right way, and prevent anyone else from doing something different. Witness the whole GNOME interface disaster.
If the menu options get in the way of changing commonly-used selections, then the solution is to adjust the menus so fix that, not to remove everything that sjbe doesn't use.
hough, California has a higher-than-usual Hispanic population, so maybe nationally the % of Hispanic AP Exam takers is less than 7.
"Higher-than-usual" is putting it mildly; as of 2012 38% of the california population is hispanic, as compared to 17% of the U.S. population. (Source here), which seems to agree with other sources I found with a quick Google.
The obvious argument would be that GMOs allow farmers to grow more food with less effort, which translates into less fossil fuel used to produce the food. Whether that is a significant impact, I don't know. I didn't find much in the way of real data in a quick Googling.
I am now blocked by tens of hundreds of people I don't know, for reasons _they don't fucking know!_ but apparently I'm in Wheatons "toxic" list.
Why are you so fascinated with talking to the type of people that would blindly choose to use Wil Wheaton's censorship list?
What if we have something in common and I would have stumbled across them to discuss something? We clearly have an interest in Star Trek. What if I make a product they'd like that they miss out on (and I miss their sale) because I'm blocked by them If you're coming to Slashdot to get sympathy for your right to advertise your product to people that don't want to hear it (for whatever reason), you've probably come to the wrong place.
Slashdot Mirror
Dream on. Next you'll be wanting us to make it solar powered and turn the excess carbon into building material.
So you would see no problem in feeding people in homeless shelters bowls of boiled sawdust? There is no responsibility to feed people properly when you accept the responsibility to feed them?
What other things do you think you can do improperly after you've promised to do them?
In the context of this discussion, you said that McDonald's is "accepting responsibility to feed people" by offering free lunches.
If you opened a homeless shelter, and tried to feed people sawdust, that would not be morally wrong. It would be stupid, because nobody would eat it, but it wouldn't be wrong. There is no responsibility for you to "feed people properly" (whatever that means) just because you offered to feed them something.
Do you really not remember that this entire discussion is about McD giving free lunches to people who qualify for free lunches?
No, this discussion stemmed from a comment that if McDonald's offered free lunches, other restaurants would have to do the same or shut down; and I pointed out that we already have evidence that people are willing to pay a price premium for quality. Whether or not people who cannot afford to eat at McDonald's today would start eating the free lunches is really not relevant to that discussion.
I would be willing to agree that the McDonald's analogy is not a particularly good one, partly there's an awful lot more competition and choices in the restaurant space than in ISP coverage -- and people are already used to paying a premium for better-quality food.
Because when you are accepting responsibility for feeding people who cannot afford to feed themselves, you must also accept responsibility for feeding them properly.
False, of course.
Note also that "people who cannot afford to feed themselves" already do not eat at McDonald's.
But they do go to other places than McD that they can afford -- which they won't do when McD is free.
So your claim is that McD's will get 100% of the "don't care about food quality" market? They might -- but why should anyone care? The claim that there is no substantial market for quality food is obviously false, and there is no reason to think that all other restaurants, even those in the same price bracket, would disappear.
Other restaurants that specialize in crap food might go out of business. BFD.
...because there is simply not enough of a market for quality.
You do realize that in any major city, there are literally hundreds of restaurants that are much more expensive than McDonald's, and they stay in business because in reality there is a market for quality, right?
It certainly will, at high enough concentrations for a long enough time. But breathing exhaust gas won't prove that, because the carbon monoxide will kill you long before the CO2 becomes a problem.
I look forward to you piping your tailpipe into your car to prove your point.
It's not the CO2 that will kill you if you try that.
There is ONE vowel. And no, "y" is not a Russian vowel.
So I'm curious: In "Shershnyov", do you consider "e" or "o" to not be a vowel?
Maybe you don't care but she's entitled to a different opinion.
She certainly does. She's even entitled to a different opinion on whether or not she should sue her parents. That doesn't mean that I'm not allowed to have an opinion.
I can get on board with the notion that suing might be overkill here but there is no objective reason for the parents to persist their behavior.
I don't disagree. Her parents should remove the pictures. But the original question was what should she do. Her father is evidently a jackass; she can't control that. In reality, it would be better for her, her parents, and everyone else if she were to let it go rather than going to the extreme of suing them.
OK, let's say she has a mental illness in which those photographs cause her a lot of distress.
If that is the case, then the correct option is still not to sue her parents. The correct option is to help her get the medical help she needs.
Of course, you're not going to agree with this, because you framed your answer in such a way as to imply that mentally ill people have no right to sue to have their rights respected.
There is no right to not be distressed, regardless of whether or not you are mentally ill.
You're telling me it's "absurd" for her to sue, and she should "Grow The Fuck Up (tm)". But you're not telling me what she should actually do. What choices does she have other than suing?
The obvious answer is to ignore it. Non-mentally-ill adults do not experience "emotional distress" over the fact that people may see some of their baby pictures.
Police wont do shit to stop you getting robbed. Best you can hope for is they turn up not too long after and give you a crime reference number so you can claim on your insurance if you have any. In America they might turn up quicker on the off chance they get to shoot someone.
I suggest you spend some time in a country that doesn't have a strong police presence and then re-think that statement. In a lot of countries around the world, if you have any significant possessions, you have to live inside of a cage to keep from getting robbed. In America that is the exception rather than the rule.
Congratulations, investors. Thanks to your shortsightedness, you've corralled Nintendo into making what will surely be a bad Mario platformer. This is how you kill the goose...
There's been no shortage of terrible Mario games over the years.
How do you propose hooking this phone to the car audio system now? Has to be wired as no car stereo supports this new format or are they doing both bluetooth and this new format?
It is exceedingly unlikely that they would be removing bluetooth support (and if they were, somebody would have mentioned it by now.) Presumably they will be supporting both.
Parent has the 2012 edition. You're probably on the 2013 edition like I am.
Mine is a 2012, and it still works pretty good. (I did have to "downgrade" from the updated Android version back to an older version of Cyanogenmod, though.) It's not useless by any stretch of the imagination; I use it almost every day.
I have started having problems with it occasionally crashing, which I suspect is hardware-related. If there's a new Nexus 7 when it finally bites the dust, I may get one.
Could we get all of the "accounts at X compromised" stories put into a dedicated section that we can filter out of the front page if we so desire?
I get that these are important to those people who are affected, but it's getting to the point where there's at least one, sometimes more, of these stories every day. There's nothing new to be said about the topic.
The point here is that the EU is punishing _Ireland_ for giving Apple that deal, and requiring Ireland to make Apple pay back taxes.
It requires some real mental contortions to paint grabbing 13 billion Euros from Apple as punishing Ireland. Ireland got what they wanted out of the deal already -- more tax revenue and jobs than they would have had otherwise. This is obviously an attempt to punish Apple.
Why do many of them need to be on the small screen in the first place? You are going to interface the camera with a computer at some point so why not offload the menus for the rarely/never used settings to a PC or tablet?
While not having used this camera, I'm not going to comment on the merits of its interface, I don't really see why you think that the mere existence of an interface on the camera to change these settings harms you. If these settings really don't need to be changed often (/ever), then bury them in some sort of "advanced settings" menu that you can then ignore. Yours is the same mentality that we see from a lot of UI "experts" -- they proclaim that the way they want to use a product is the right way, and prevent anyone else from doing something different. Witness the whole GNOME interface disaster.
If the menu options get in the way of changing commonly-used selections, then the solution is to adjust the menus so fix that, not to remove everything that sjbe doesn't use.
Considering the huge price of these things (love my iPhone 6+ anyway) let's hope Apple will offer some solution.
Presumably they will offer a solution, along the lines of "bend over and buy an iPhone 7, peasant!"
Maybe Comcast isn't interested in building the infrastructure to offer service solely for internet-only customers.
hough, California has a higher-than-usual Hispanic population, so maybe nationally the % of Hispanic AP Exam takers is less than 7.
"Higher-than-usual" is putting it mildly; as of 2012 38% of the california population is hispanic, as compared to 17% of the U.S. population. (Source here), which seems to agree with other sources I found with a quick Google.
The obvious argument would be that GMOs allow farmers to grow more food with less effort, which translates into less fossil fuel used to produce the food. Whether that is a significant impact, I don't know. I didn't find much in the way of real data in a quick Googling.
I am now blocked by tens of hundreds of people I don't know, for reasons _they don't fucking know!_ but apparently I'm in Wheatons "toxic" list.
Why are you so fascinated with talking to the type of people that would blindly choose to use Wil Wheaton's censorship list?
What if we have something in common and I would have stumbled across them to discuss something? We clearly have an interest in Star Trek. What if I make a product they'd like that they miss out on (and I miss their sale) because I'm blocked by them
If you're coming to Slashdot to get sympathy for your right to advertise your product to people that don't want to hear it (for whatever reason), you've probably come to the wrong place.
when the federal government stands in the way of even local governments being able to do what they want in their own cities.
State government, not federal.