No, but an impediment to it working as planned. Of course you can pass all sorts of ridiculous laws, but all you get that way is a useless legal body that eventually nobody takes serious anymore.
Same question to you: Do you know more than the article says? All the article says is that an organization with "atheist" in the name got banned. That doesn't make it an atheist organization. Organizations can pick their own name, even if their believes, plans and actions have nothing to do with their name.
Really? Thanks for defining what I believe. I honestly didn't know I do believe that.
Atheism means exactly one thing, and one thing only: Not believing in deities. Nothing more, nothing less. Yes, that means that you are not required to "believe" in the Big Bang Theory to be an atheist (or watch the show for that matter). And it doesn't keep you from thinking the universe was created by aliens from planet Zrbit outside our universe.
In other words, just because you're atheist doesn't mean you're rational. You just have a chance to be rational.
Do you know more than the article or do you go by name? Li'l hint: The "German Democratic Republic" was... well, at least part of Germany. The rest was bunk.
Ratings are all studios care about, though. Any story is only as good as the ratings it brings in and nobody gives a shit about sending a message. That is the sad truth.
I'm still waiting to see how Captain Marvel is going to perform. So far it's looking pretty good from the critics.
I'd rather have them join forces. Technologists could explain why laws can't work on a technical level, lawyers can explain why they won't work on a legal level and if they work together, there's a chance that the result is a law that DOES actually work on both levels.
I have met lawyers. I have met technologists. I can say in good faith that on average the latter have more humanity in them than the former.
I wouldn't want Zuckerberg to run my country. Then again, I wouldn't want a lot of what now runs the country to run it either, so... I honestly can't say what's worse.
Trying to compete with lawyers (and yes, most politicians are lawyers) in their field is not easy. As soon as you become a threat, and since you don't know how to cover your ass against a legal onslaught from them, you will be gone.
Not to mention that I have real work to do. I can't sit on my ass and do nothing, leave that to the lawyers, as long as they do that, at least they don't cause worse harm.
You're assuming he's telling the truth. What he probably should have said is "Of course you make good points. But if you make them, nobody gives a shit. If I have a man make them and you get cut, the stink this causes is more free advertising than this report could possibly generate any other way".
What this means is that whoever makes 60 minutes thought that a report about men in the business sells better than one about women in the business. Or rather that we get a LOT more air time and buzz around a story that is allegedly about women only to be totally about men...
And I wonder when this cult of stupidity started. Back when I was a kid, we did celebrate people who knew shit. Hell, even in game shows you had to be a fucking genius to win anything. They asked questions that required some actual knowledge, some education in geography, history, even physics. Today, most gameshow questions are about which worthless celebrity fucks whom and what movie got the last Oscar. Probably because if they asked the questions that were asked in the 80s, not a single contestant would survive the first round of questions.
Then look at what doubles as celebrity these days. The creed seems to be "Can't sing, can't dance, can't even form a coherent sentence, hey, give her a reality TV show!", at least that's the only thing I could possibly name as a reason for how that Kardas...whatever chick got a show. In earlier days, celebrities were "merely" movie and rock stars, but they could at least act and sing and dance! Many of them could do that at the same time. Today I'm already happy if a celebrity can at least fake doing one of them.
How did this happen? When did we start celebrating utter uselessness?
From time to time the argument works. Because this is really about the kids. I know that in rural areas around here, kids still walk to school. And walking about alone in the dark is scary.
Without encryption, anyone could siphon the information and sell it. And information is most valuable if not everyone has it, information that everyone has is, money-wise, worthless, since nobody would pay for it. So FB has a very good reason to demand encryption between them and their user (of course THEY reserve the right to eavesdrop).
Being banned in countries that disallow that is logical. Why bother wasting resources on worthless data you cannot monetize because someone else is doing it already?
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone identifying it as a bad law. Then a discussion about it can start.
No, but an impediment to it working as planned. Of course you can pass all sorts of ridiculous laws, but all you get that way is a useless legal body that eventually nobody takes serious anymore.
Same question to you: Do you know more than the article says? All the article says is that an organization with "atheist" in the name got banned. That doesn't make it an atheist organization. Organizations can pick their own name, even if their believes, plans and actions have nothing to do with their name.
For reference, see NSDAP.
Really? Thanks for defining what I believe. I honestly didn't know I do believe that.
Atheism means exactly one thing, and one thing only: Not believing in deities. Nothing more, nothing less. Yes, that means that you are not required to "believe" in the Big Bang Theory to be an atheist (or watch the show for that matter). And it doesn't keep you from thinking the universe was created by aliens from planet Zrbit outside our universe.
In other words, just because you're atheist doesn't mean you're rational. You just have a chance to be rational.
Atheism is not a political position but one of sanity. So, by definition, not a political position...
Do you know more than the article or do you go by name? Li'l hint: The "German Democratic Republic" was ... well, at least part of Germany. The rest was bunk.
Well, it works over here in Europe. Wonder why.
I think
Can I have a second opinion on that?
The problem isn't that they don't understand, the problem is that they don't give a shit.
Start handing out fines and you will see improvement. Some people don't function properly without being beaten when malfunctioning.
Ratings are all studios care about, though. Any story is only as good as the ratings it brings in and nobody gives a shit about sending a message. That is the sad truth.
I'm still waiting to see how Captain Marvel is going to perform. So far it's looking pretty good from the critics.
I'd rather have them join forces. Technologists could explain why laws can't work on a technical level, lawyers can explain why they won't work on a legal level and if they work together, there's a chance that the result is a law that DOES actually work on both levels.
I have met lawyers. I have met technologists. I can say in good faith that on average the latter have more humanity in them than the former.
I wouldn't want Zuckerberg to run my country. Then again, I wouldn't want a lot of what now runs the country to run it either, so... I honestly can't say what's worse.
You certainly have a good reason why, too, right? You just didn't present it so far because ... reasons.
How about technical people designing legislation and having a lawyer then making it airtight?
There's no reason for either-or.
Trying to compete with lawyers (and yes, most politicians are lawyers) in their field is not easy. As soon as you become a threat, and since you don't know how to cover your ass against a legal onslaught from them, you will be gone.
Not to mention that I have real work to do. I can't sit on my ass and do nothing, leave that to the lawyers, as long as they do that, at least they don't cause worse harm.
Maybe because you didn't go to school an hour early in Winter?
You're assuming he's telling the truth. What he probably should have said is "Of course you make good points. But if you make them, nobody gives a shit. If I have a man make them and you get cut, the stink this causes is more free advertising than this report could possibly generate any other way".
All it proves to me is that stories like this sell. Think we'd be discussing this if it was actually a story about women in IT?
What this means is that whoever makes 60 minutes thought that a report about men in the business sells better than one about women in the business. Or rather that we get a LOT more air time and buzz around a story that is allegedly about women only to be totally about men...
So does the sun, cars, hot rooftops, ...
And I wonder when this cult of stupidity started. Back when I was a kid, we did celebrate people who knew shit. Hell, even in game shows you had to be a fucking genius to win anything. They asked questions that required some actual knowledge, some education in geography, history, even physics. Today, most gameshow questions are about which worthless celebrity fucks whom and what movie got the last Oscar. Probably because if they asked the questions that were asked in the 80s, not a single contestant would survive the first round of questions.
Then look at what doubles as celebrity these days. The creed seems to be "Can't sing, can't dance, can't even form a coherent sentence, hey, give her a reality TV show!", at least that's the only thing I could possibly name as a reason for how that Kardas...whatever chick got a show. In earlier days, celebrities were "merely" movie and rock stars, but they could at least act and sing and dance! Many of them could do that at the same time. Today I'm already happy if a celebrity can at least fake doing one of them.
How did this happen? When did we start celebrating utter uselessness?
From time to time the argument works. Because this is really about the kids. I know that in rural areas around here, kids still walk to school. And walking about alone in the dark is scary.
Nobody said end-to-end encryption. And even if they did, did they specify the "ends"?
Rest assured that FB will be able to decrypt and snoop.
I believe it.
Without encryption, anyone could siphon the information and sell it. And information is most valuable if not everyone has it, information that everyone has is, money-wise, worthless, since nobody would pay for it. So FB has a very good reason to demand encryption between them and their user (of course THEY reserve the right to eavesdrop).
Being banned in countries that disallow that is logical. Why bother wasting resources on worthless data you cannot monetize because someone else is doing it already?
You're in luck, in less than 3 months you get to vote on a new EU parliament.