Facebook and Google are pretty open about the fact that they are not interested in protecting privacy. They are building their business models on the assumption that society understands and accepts this.
If people disagree, they are free not to use their services. If I don't want people to see "hot donkey nuts" on my Google search history, then I shouldn't be searching for hot donkey nuts in Google. If you do not want future employers to see pictures of you doing kegstands, do not post them on Facebook.
People need to take responsibility for protecting their own privacy. Facebook and Google make their dollars by organizing and selling your data. If you do not want them to publish your data, do not give it to them.
ABS makes all of this accessible to grandma who doesn't have a clue how to pump the breaks for fast breaking.
My Grandma is probably a lot more experienced with pumping the brakes to prevent a lockup than I am. Most of her driving was done without ABS, but every vehicle I've owned has had ABS (though my dad's pickup that I learned on did not). That is not to say that I disagree with your point, ABS is wonderfully convenient because in an emergency situation it reduces the number of things I need to think about.
Aside from the slippery surface type accidents, I have a hard time seeing how ABS would help prevent anything. Definitely assists the drivers in handling emergency situations, but parent is right that ABS can't really be proactive in stopping accidents.
GP's last point though is valid. "Don't drive like your car makes you invincible". ABS, airbags, and crumple zones do not give you the freedom to drive like Mad Max.
once he's recognised it as as a cut and paste email, he should be just reply with a cut and paste answer;
I think that's a fantastic idea. It is unfortunate that the people who receive that form letter would then use it as proof that Raab is ignoring his constituents, but in my opinion it seems absolutely fair.
Also, get a simple spam filter. If I'm getting 2-3 e-mails a day from the same source saying the same thing, I'm just going to filter it right into the trash.
What if the game was designed to trash the $$$ so it couldn't be recovered?
That would actually make a lot of sense to me. Now that PLEX can be carried around, that seems like a good way to reduce the incentive for attacking those ships. If PLEX raiding were common I think you would see people more concerned about the looting of items with real world value. By making sure the PLEX doesn't survive the attack then you reduce (but not eliminate) the risk that people will lose real money.
I hear your point, it is a slippery slope, but I think we are headed down that slope regardless. There are too many powerful content providers that want to control the pipes.
At least this method preserves a free internet, even if it is diminished (which seems likely). In fact there are plenty of applications where I would see this second internet to be a good thing. Cable TV can easily be replaced by Internet TV. Content control over that internet makes sense, I don't want to have to futz around with an open content internet.
I get.5Mbps down and.3Mbps up on a T-Mobile G-1. It borders on painfully slow to be sure, but is fine for e-mail and take-your-time web browsing. It's frustratingly slow when I need to do something quickly, but is perfectly fine if I'm not in a rush.
I'll second that. I rely on e-mail for both work and personal communication. I do use Gmail as a means of consolidating and simplifying my accounts, but that doesn't mean the underlying e-mail services are dead. UI's have evolved, but it's still e-mail. I'm having a hard time imagining any kind of desk job for which e-mail is not a primary method of communication. Facebook allows me to do things that e-mail cannot, but it definitely hasn't killed e-mail.
The plain text nature of e-mail is fantastic for a number of situations. I'm not always interesting in embedding video, pictures, or Mafia Wars invites in all of my communications. 98% of the communication I need to do can be done over plain text with the occasional attachment.
But it took us 100 years after the Constitution was written to solve it. I'm not saying Slavery is still a fuzzy issue, I'm just pointing to an example of where the Constitution was ambiguous and required elaboration/interpretation.
And keep in mind that the issue of what constitutes a Citizen deserving of the protections granted by the Constitution is still a hot topic.
You've got a very important point in there. The Military is not burying their heads in the sand and pretending that if they can't see the leaks then they never happened. They have teams of people focused on reviewing these documents and determining how damaging their release is. All the Military is doing is telling is members that are not Analysts to forget about the leaks and mind their own business. It's damage control.
Re:Don't f* with the IT guy like at restaurant you
on
Child Porn As a Weapon
·
· Score: 1
I originally learned this from an acquaintance that has worked in RI in the Industry. If you want something more concrete than that, Google it.
Re:jurys most of the time are to dumb to think of
on
Child Porn As a Weapon
·
· Score: 1
But the point is valid. Because Juries are pulled from the public we need a smarter public. Or at least a literate public.
Re:Don't f* with the IT guy like at restaurant you
on
Child Porn As a Weapon
·
· Score: 1
Everywhere in the US, the minimum age to model or act in pornographic material is 18.
I can't speak for all states, but Rhode Island allows girls as young as 16 to work as exotic dancers so long as they work less than 20 hours during a school week.
Yeah but their law clerks are absolutely top notch. I have read a lot of concern that the SCOTUS is understaffed, that there aren't enough clerks to fully research case law, but they are there and they are very bright. A Judicial background would definitely help, but they should have enough competent staff to advise them on precedents and such.
Funny example my US History teacher loved to give: The Constitution gave the Government the power to maintain and Army and a Navy. The Constitution made no mention of an Air Force...
The US Constitution is pretty well regarded as being remarkably well thought out. Personally I admire its brevity and simplicity. Its genius is that it was written with the understanding that it could not provide solutions or guidelines for all issues that might arise in the future, but instead set up a system of Government that was capable of adapting itself. The Government it established has run uninterrupted for over 300 years. How many other forms of Government have lasted that long without being overthrown? (Some, but not many).
Show me an example of constantly unresolved point of the constitution.
Slavery. The authors could not come to a consensus about how to define it or even describe the industry. Once everybody realized that everyone else had different opinions, they stopped trying. The distinction between citizens and property was intentionally not discussed in the Constitution, partly to allow the States to make their own independent conclusions, but primarily so that the Legislative branch of Government could address future aspects of the issue as they arose. Slavery was simply to divisive of an issue to handle at the time, and would have broken up the infant nation had they tried. This example is pretty well documented.
Yeah, I got the impression that the question Coburn was driving at was the legality of the Government issuing individual mandates to every citizen (replace "eat your vegetables" with "buy health insurance"). I wish the question had been more simply phrased so we could have heard her response. Once cases relating to the mandated health insurance finally reach the Supreme Court, her opinion on that will definitely matter.
Um, from a 2nd amendment standpoint, if you're not in a well regulated militia you have precisely zero right to be armed.
Time to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. The militia bit was an example, not a requirement. Here's an oversimplified modern re-write you should be able to understand:
"It's nice to have people around who know how to handle weapons, so don't take people's guns away."
I'm just gonna go ahead and quote you so the people filtering out by score will see this point. You are exactly correct.
The wording of the amendment implies that the presence of well regulated militias is a function of an armed citizenry. Seeing as how well regulated militias are better than non regulated militias (i.e. street gangs), we ought to make sure our law abiding citizens have a right to arm themselves.
That's not even a really conservative reading of the amendment. A really conservative reading of the amendment would be that it not only gives us the right to be armed, but requires us to maintain militias. Which until the Militia Act of 1903 (which created the national guard) was exactly how most people interpreted it.
Except for the stuff you'll have to deal with if you have an overzealous, anti-gun prosecutor. Then you get treated like the criminal, not the victim.
Plus, you've got to consider local laws. I live in MA where unless the situation somehow requires you to use force you are legally required to withdraw even from your own home. Basically, unless you or your teenage daughter are actually being stabbed you cannot use deadly force.
Guns are great in places like Texas, where people understand that the owner of the home being invaded is the victim. Not so great in some areas. You need to be sure of your local laws before using any force in home defense.
I've got a buddy with a Judge that loads his own 410...with rocksalt. He wants to make sure he can detain the intruder without killing them. I think he's crazy.
But offering negative reinforcement to poor habits is socially useful. If Joe the Dragon took the time to use written language properly society as a whole would benefit by his contributions to the discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
Facebook and Google are pretty open about the fact that they are not interested in protecting privacy. They are building their business models on the assumption that society understands and accepts this.
If people disagree, they are free not to use their services. If I don't want people to see "hot donkey nuts" on my Google search history, then I shouldn't be searching for hot donkey nuts in Google. If you do not want future employers to see pictures of you doing kegstands, do not post them on Facebook.
People need to take responsibility for protecting their own privacy. Facebook and Google make their dollars by organizing and selling your data. If you do not want them to publish your data, do not give it to them.
ABS makes all of this accessible to grandma who doesn't have a clue how to pump the breaks for fast breaking.
My Grandma is probably a lot more experienced with pumping the brakes to prevent a lockup than I am. Most of her driving was done without ABS, but every vehicle I've owned has had ABS (though my dad's pickup that I learned on did not). That is not to say that I disagree with your point, ABS is wonderfully convenient because in an emergency situation it reduces the number of things I need to think about.
Aside from the slippery surface type accidents, I have a hard time seeing how ABS would help prevent anything. Definitely assists the drivers in handling emergency situations, but parent is right that ABS can't really be proactive in stopping accidents.
GP's last point though is valid. "Don't drive like your car makes you invincible". ABS, airbags, and crumple zones do not give you the freedom to drive like Mad Max.
once he's recognised it as as a cut and paste email, he should be just reply with a cut and paste answer;
I think that's a fantastic idea. It is unfortunate that the people who receive that form letter would then use it as proof that Raab is ignoring his constituents, but in my opinion it seems absolutely fair.
Also, get a simple spam filter. If I'm getting 2-3 e-mails a day from the same source saying the same thing, I'm just going to filter it right into the trash.
What if the game was designed to trash the $$$ so it couldn't be recovered?
That would actually make a lot of sense to me. Now that PLEX can be carried around, that seems like a good way to reduce the incentive for attacking those ships. If PLEX raiding were common I think you would see people more concerned about the looting of items with real world value. By making sure the PLEX doesn't survive the attack then you reduce (but not eliminate) the risk that people will lose real money.
I hear your point, it is a slippery slope, but I think we are headed down that slope regardless. There are too many powerful content providers that want to control the pipes.
At least this method preserves a free internet, even if it is diminished (which seems likely). In fact there are plenty of applications where I would see this second internet to be a good thing. Cable TV can easily be replaced by Internet TV. Content control over that internet makes sense, I don't want to have to futz around with an open content internet.
You might want to read up on a recent SCOTUS decision. Turns out the First Amendment is for corporations too.
I get .5Mbps down and .3Mbps up on a T-Mobile G-1. It borders on painfully slow to be sure, but is fine for e-mail and take-your-time web browsing. It's frustratingly slow when I need to do something quickly, but is perfectly fine if I'm not in a rush.
Seems like that would work really well. You could even just print a timestamped code on every receipt that deactivates X hours after the purchase.
I'll second that. I rely on e-mail for both work and personal communication. I do use Gmail as a means of consolidating and simplifying my accounts, but that doesn't mean the underlying e-mail services are dead. UI's have evolved, but it's still e-mail. I'm having a hard time imagining any kind of desk job for which e-mail is not a primary method of communication. Facebook allows me to do things that e-mail cannot, but it definitely hasn't killed e-mail.
The plain text nature of e-mail is fantastic for a number of situations. I'm not always interesting in embedding video, pictures, or Mafia Wars invites in all of my communications. 98% of the communication I need to do can be done over plain text with the occasional attachment.
But it took us 100 years after the Constitution was written to solve it. I'm not saying Slavery is still a fuzzy issue, I'm just pointing to an example of where the Constitution was ambiguous and required elaboration/interpretation.
And keep in mind that the issue of what constitutes a Citizen deserving of the protections granted by the Constitution is still a hot topic.
You've got a very important point in there. The Military is not burying their heads in the sand and pretending that if they can't see the leaks then they never happened. They have teams of people focused on reviewing these documents and determining how damaging their release is. All the Military is doing is telling is members that are not Analysts to forget about the leaks and mind their own business. It's damage control.
I originally learned this from an acquaintance that has worked in RI in the Industry. If you want something more concrete than that, Google it.
But the point is valid. Because Juries are pulled from the public we need a smarter public. Or at least a literate public.
Everywhere in the US, the minimum age to model or act in pornographic material is 18.
I can't speak for all states, but Rhode Island allows girls as young as 16 to work as exotic dancers so long as they work less than 20 hours during a school week.
Yeah but their law clerks are absolutely top notch. I have read a lot of concern that the SCOTUS is understaffed, that there aren't enough clerks to fully research case law, but they are there and they are very bright. A Judicial background would definitely help, but they should have enough competent staff to advise them on precedents and such.
Waiting for her to hear a few cases so we can see what she really thinks.
Me too. It just would have been nice to get that before we offered her the lifetime position as one of the most powerful people in the country...
Crap, I had a typo in there. Should have been 200 years.
Funny example my US History teacher loved to give: The Constitution gave the Government the power to maintain and Army and a Navy. The Constitution made no mention of an Air Force...
The US Constitution is pretty well regarded as being remarkably well thought out. Personally I admire its brevity and simplicity. Its genius is that it was written with the understanding that it could not provide solutions or guidelines for all issues that might arise in the future, but instead set up a system of Government that was capable of adapting itself. The Government it established has run uninterrupted for over 300 years. How many other forms of Government have lasted that long without being overthrown? (Some, but not many).
Show me an example of constantly unresolved point of the constitution.
Slavery. The authors could not come to a consensus about how to define it or even describe the industry. Once everybody realized that everyone else had different opinions, they stopped trying. The distinction between citizens and property was intentionally not discussed in the Constitution, partly to allow the States to make their own independent conclusions, but primarily so that the Legislative branch of Government could address future aspects of the issue as they arose. Slavery was simply to divisive of an issue to handle at the time, and would have broken up the infant nation had they tried. This example is pretty well documented.
Yeah, I got the impression that the question Coburn was driving at was the legality of the Government issuing individual mandates to every citizen (replace "eat your vegetables" with "buy health insurance"). I wish the question had been more simply phrased so we could have heard her response. Once cases relating to the mandated health insurance finally reach the Supreme Court, her opinion on that will definitely matter.
Um, from a 2nd amendment standpoint, if you're not in a well regulated militia you have precisely zero right to be armed.
Time to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. The militia bit was an example, not a requirement. Here's an oversimplified modern re-write you should be able to understand:
"It's nice to have people around who know how to handle weapons, so don't take people's guns away."
I'm just gonna go ahead and quote you so the people filtering out by score will see this point. You are exactly correct.
The wording of the amendment implies that the presence of well regulated militias is a function of an armed citizenry. Seeing as how well regulated militias are better than non regulated militias (i.e. street gangs), we ought to make sure our law abiding citizens have a right to arm themselves.
That's not even a really conservative reading of the amendment. A really conservative reading of the amendment would be that it not only gives us the right to be armed, but requires us to maintain militias. Which until the Militia Act of 1903 (which created the national guard) was exactly how most people interpreted it.
I always looked at the Home Alone movies as instructional videos. Dad never appreciated the extra security...
Except for the stuff you'll have to deal with if you have an overzealous, anti-gun prosecutor. Then you get treated like the criminal, not the victim.
Plus, you've got to consider local laws. I live in MA where unless the situation somehow requires you to use force you are legally required to withdraw even from your own home. Basically, unless you or your teenage daughter are actually being stabbed you cannot use deadly force.
Guns are great in places like Texas, where people understand that the owner of the home being invaded is the victim. Not so great in some areas. You need to be sure of your local laws before using any force in home defense.
I've got a buddy with a Judge that loads his own 410 ...with rocksalt. He wants to make sure he can detain the intruder without killing them. I think he's crazy.
But offering negative reinforcement to poor habits is socially useful. If Joe the Dragon took the time to use written language properly society as a whole would benefit by his contributions to the discussion.