Hmm. I have a Yuengling lager in my hand, made and consumed in the U.S., and there is no stated alcohol percent anywhere on it. Maybe it's on the case? Don't know.
Uh, no. Race exists in all species, it is a subdivision of that species, just like species is a subdivision of a genus. In dogs we call them breeds. Where the boundaries lie between races is somewhat arbitrary. Between these groups, physical and biological differences are the rule, not the exception. If it helps you to call them "ethnicities", go right ahead, because those differences are smaller but still exist.
This doesn't mean an individual is defined by his or her race, only that they tend toward different means than those of other races. Nor does it excuse discrimination under the law, or treating members of some races poorly simply because they're a member of that race.
This is scientific, biological reality. Even if all the races died except for one, in 50,000 years there would be multiple races again, provided different populations were allowed to separate entirely for a while.
If that's the case, why isn't every Starbucks shut down for facilitating CP downloads? I think it's a fear that's blown far out of proportion. The most likely negative of sharing wifi is the person maxing out your bandwidth with Netflix downloads.
Not necessarily. Keep in mind they never go after "doanloaders", only uploaders. It's just that with torrents, they've made the argument that everyone in the swarm is an uploader.
Also, if 2 people share a file, there are several nodes between them that also share that file, but no one is ever sued except the end user. With a place like Torrent tracker sites, they've made the argument that they of course know they're trading illegal files, that they have received take-down requests and ignored them. Even places like Youtube are expected to ban things on request.
Now enter proxy torrenting. Who do they send a take-down request to? Even if they can pin an upload to a specific address, they need to show that you knew you were trading "The Avengers" which you almost certainly didn't.
The U.S. is on the metric system, it's just not mandatory, meaning things like contracts and road signs can be metric, and some are, but it's not required.
I'm trying to wrap my brain around how a principal could be so stupid. It's a public computer that gets passed around. I wouldn't look at *regular* porn on that thing. Nor would I visit a banking web site (yes it's HTTPS, but boot keyloggers exist).
It sounds like you decided that since it's not realistic for the whole of black men to have power over the whole of white men, that you've extrapolated that into believing that it's not possible for a black man to have power over a white man.
White man walks through black neighborhood, gets attacked by black men because he's white. If you don't count that as racism than you should probably stop trying to use words at all.
So what's the difference? If cops in Canada or the U.S. can do whatever they want with no consequences, what's the difference between that and your "actual" police states?
Except the question is worded "suspected" terrorist. It's okay to kill people we're not really sure have done anything? And of course, no one would make up false accusations to appear tough on terrorism and score political points, right?
Just wait America until your own government is using drone strikes against "suspected" drug dealers. Who cares if they get the wrong guy half the time, you don't hate 'murica do you?
So what does Starbucks do? Who shares their wifi with everyone? And other businesses? Is Starbucks guilty of anything their customers do on their wifi? And if they are legally allowed to share it, why can't an individual? Different laws for business vs individual? I see no reason why it would be inherently unethical and therefore must be against the law for a person to share his wifi with a stranger. It would also be a tough sell to say that legally you're responsible for anything done on your network, because you're an individual and not a business.
Except, those items ARE sold in the other countries. Then someone who now owns them, imports them and sells them in the U.S.
They could solve this with a tariff on such imports. That way, they're still "yours" but the inflated U.S. price is somewhat protected. The only problem is, that will NEVER happen. People buy way too many imports and companies are making way too much money selling cheap imports to Americans.
Slashdot Mirror
They won't unless you light it under their feet.
You do have a right to freedom of press and that extends to both video and to the internet.
Hmm. I have a Yuengling lager in my hand, made and consumed in the U.S., and there is no stated alcohol percent anywhere on it. Maybe it's on the case? Don't know.
That amount would be (effectively) zero.
Uh, no. Race exists in all species, it is a subdivision of that species, just like species is a subdivision of a genus. In dogs we call them breeds. Where the boundaries lie between races is somewhat arbitrary. Between these groups, physical and biological differences are the rule, not the exception. If it helps you to call them "ethnicities", go right ahead, because those differences are smaller but still exist.
This doesn't mean an individual is defined by his or her race, only that they tend toward different means than those of other races. Nor does it excuse discrimination under the law, or treating members of some races poorly simply because they're a member of that race.
This is scientific, biological reality. Even if all the races died except for one, in 50,000 years there would be multiple races again, provided different populations were allowed to separate entirely for a while.
Yeah, my understanding is that other nations send them here on their dime, specifically so they will come home with that education.
BS. If you're from India or China, *everything* is attractive in the U.S., especially if you're a girl.
You don't have wifi insurance so not sure how this applies.
If that's the case, why isn't every Starbucks shut down for facilitating CP downloads? I think it's a fear that's blown far out of proportion. The most likely negative of sharing wifi is the person maxing out your bandwidth with Netflix downloads.
Not necessarily. Keep in mind they never go after "doanloaders", only uploaders. It's just that with torrents, they've made the argument that everyone in the swarm is an uploader.
Also, if 2 people share a file, there are several nodes between them that also share that file, but no one is ever sued except the end user. With a place like Torrent tracker sites, they've made the argument that they of course know they're trading illegal files, that they have received take-down requests and ignored them. Even places like Youtube are expected to ban things on request.
Now enter proxy torrenting. Who do they send a take-down request to? Even if they can pin an upload to a specific address, they need to show that you knew you were trading "The Avengers" which you almost certainly didn't.
It's a legal mountain.
Yes, the U.S. has lots of gun deaths.
This is an acceptable price of having the freedom to own guns.
Just like there is lots of domestic violence. This is the price of the freedom of cohabitation.
There's no problem with violence in America. It's going down. Steadily. For years.
You can drop it even more if you end the drug war.
We like guns. And we hate child murder. Anyone would. But we just don't think we ought to do ANYTHING POSSIBLE to prevent it.
You can't even prevent violence in prisons where ALL your rights are suspended.
Reasonable steps to limit violence are a good thing, but we're already taking them, and THEY WORK.
So chill.
The U.S. is on the metric system, it's just not mandatory, meaning things like contracts and road signs can be metric, and some are, but it's not required.
"Facebook friends" might just be people you met once, or not even that.
Rolling in his grave, I imagine.
I'm trying to wrap my brain around how a principal could be so stupid. It's a public computer that gets passed around. I wouldn't look at *regular* porn on that thing. Nor would I visit a banking web site (yes it's HTTPS, but boot keyloggers exist).
That's because NYC would keep your DNA on file forever, and use it to bust you for things that aren't even crimes, like protesting.
It sounds like you decided that since it's not realistic for the whole of black men to have power over the whole of white men, that you've extrapolated that into believing that it's not possible for a black man to have power over a white man.
White man walks through black neighborhood, gets attacked by black men because he's white. If you don't count that as racism than you should probably stop trying to use words at all.
People don't get their accounts stolen through brute force password hacks, so who cares about case sensitivity.
Nowadays a lot of people are classified as sex offenders that shouldn't be
Yes, ALL OF THEM.
So what's the difference? If cops in Canada or the U.S. can do whatever they want with no consequences, what's the difference between that and your "actual" police states?
Except the question is worded "suspected" terrorist. It's okay to kill people we're not really sure have done anything? And of course, no one would make up false accusations to appear tough on terrorism and score political points, right? Just wait America until your own government is using drone strikes against "suspected" drug dealers. Who cares if they get the wrong guy half the time, you don't hate 'murica do you?
The Tea Party also wants blacks back in chains and Christianity to be the law of the land, and don't pretend otherwise.
Fuck you, you fucking fuck.
I had a better response, but this is all you deserve.
So what does Starbucks do? Who shares their wifi with everyone? And other businesses? Is Starbucks guilty of anything their customers do on their wifi? And if they are legally allowed to share it, why can't an individual? Different laws for business vs individual? I see no reason why it would be inherently unethical and therefore must be against the law for a person to share his wifi with a stranger. It would also be a tough sell to say that legally you're responsible for anything done on your network, because you're an individual and not a business.
Except, those items ARE sold in the other countries. Then someone who now owns them, imports them and sells them in the U.S.
They could solve this with a tariff on such imports. That way, they're still "yours" but the inflated U.S. price is somewhat protected. The only problem is, that will NEVER happen. People buy way too many imports and companies are making way too much money selling cheap imports to Americans.