True, local booksellers have a legitimate grievance, and one that is much more problematic with amazon than it was when it was only the publishers who were doing it and is much more problematic when people can buy from amazon immediately than when there was mail order.
But that difference is one of degree--an important difference of degree, I grant, and one which should be considered carefully, but still not a fundamental change of policy, when you think about it. Because books *Always* advertise. Sometimes de minimis by just having their imprint on them, but more frequently by listing other books by the author, and historically it was not uncommon to see order forms.
The double negative was there because it was in response to a negative. There was a complaint that it was inconsistent, so the double negative says not "it's consistent" but "it does not seem inconsistent," since it's disagreeing with the conclusion rather than undermining the conclusion. One indicates only that another conclusion is correct, whereas one indicates that that conclusion was wrong. The distinction may have little utility if "consistency" is considered in binary terms, aside from that it also says "they're wrong" rather than just "we're right and here's why." But on occasion the distinction matters, so it's not one I worry about unless I'm trying to be especially clear, as to a young child or a politician.
Libraries pay for books. And Amazon gets advertisement just from having their products used, but doesn't necessarily have to say "Go buy our book!"
Although it does not seem inconsistent with library policies not to endorse, at least no more so than selling a regular book is, because regular books have advertisements by other books by the author, etc...--some older books [and magazines] even have order forms in them.
As for the task given to the DE, improving the US schools, they have done a poor job. So yes get rid of it and let the states and better yet localities assume more control over the local schools. This ultimately gives parents and voters more control over the schools because local officials are more accountable and removable than people in DC.
Right. Because state-based educational priorities and politics always work so well.
FYI, those numbers actually sound high for slaves from Zimbabwe. (Well, maybe not with shipping, if you are ordering them from someone at the source rather than buying them after they've been trafficked.)
The student loan problem is massive, but of course is not nearly as bad as actual slavery, which is fairly common today. See River of Innocents, for example. Or google the Polaris Project.
You can't go into default in the normal sense. Most student loans can't be discharged in bankruptcy.
They can be discharged on death. Because unemployed angsty grads never have problems with suicide, Congress wanted to incentivize it. (Not really, that's just a side-effect. It really is to not burden the family of someone who dies.)
There are, however, really great loan forgiveness programs and loan repayment programs. It varies a little based on your exact loan, but generally, the current loans (which will change slightly next year, possibly) allow (1) income-adjusted repayment, where you repay the government based on your income and get the balance forgiven at the end of 30 years, regardless of how much you still owe, and (2) repayment for public service, where you get your student loans discharged after ten years of government service or not-for-profit work requiring the use of your degree.
Amazingly, I believe the Government accounts for these MASSIVE loan forgiveness expenditures in the budget by calling them budget-neutral and completely ignoring them.
They are great programs in several ways, which may be why they want to make them look good and not really account for them (they don't want to make programs which make public service work possible and which make college and graduate educations possible go away because of political pressures from the rich, who pay the most taxes and so would have the most interest in cutting those programs). Ultimately, of course, it is ridiculous to say they don't cost anything.
The assassination started a chain of events, and then people knew that war was a real possibility. Once war was a real possibility, everything was driven by railroad timetables--the complex movement of troops to the front was something that had been worked out very precisely and was very difficult, and once war became likely, every leader of every country was told "every day you don't order our troops to the front for war, we lose X miles of our country." Railroad timetables was a big driver that made it hard for people to step back.
As to the telegram exchange with the Czar, a better account of it is here:
Actually, armies all over the world are considered sustainable by default. That is to say, they will always receive enough money to at least keep their equipment in working order, regardless of the economic state of the rest of the country, since they are the only thing that stands between the state and utter annihilation. If any state is at the point where they can't even allocate this much, then they are teetering on the verge of bankruptcy, and not in the way the Eurozone is doing nowadays...
Frequently other states stand between the state and "utter annihilation." Do you think nobody invades Canada because of the power of the Canadian military? Their military isn't quite one guy with a shotgun and a winnebego--they have some armed forces. But they have nowhere near what they would need to defend their natural resources alone. The Uranium alone is worth a fortune.
They are not annihilated because other countries with substantial militaries would go to their defense--NATO generally, and more specifically Britain and the United States at the very least.
If GWB or Obama had waged war on Britain or Canada without extremely good cause, for example, it simply would not have worked. The collective establishment would have been like "WTF?" He might have been impeached or forced to resign, Congress would have defunded or outlawed the war, and good chunk of the officer corp might well have resigned before following those orders.
Effectively, Europe is safer because we kinda like Europe. (Well, at least Western Europe.) They can be absolutely bonkers (as we can be), but they have democracy, are not visibly alien to Americans, and they are part of our history books.
One nutcase in the wrong job can fail to prevent a war--but alone, he rarely can start one.
There was the Russian General who refused to launch his missiles when his system told him WW3 had started, and the Czar who let World War I start after he was begged to stop and think--though IIRC, he delayed it for a day or two.
The issue is not necessarily that it can be gotten around, so much as that it will make it harder for someone to use the information from an unauthorized location.
I hate to break it to you, but having 65 as a retirement age has ALREADY made the economy totally unbalanced.
Remember that the 65 retirement age was designed for a time when most people only lived to 50! If you made it to 65 you deserved a reward for actually surviving that long. Now almost everyone makes it to 65 and our Social support systems are taking up 50% (or more, depending on your country) of our GDP. Our economy all over the globe is in shambles trying to support a number of people the various welfare states were never designed to handle.
Frankly we need to raise the retirement age to 80 NOW. Make the boomers work for another 25 years or retire on their own money. But us Gen X and down shouldn't be paying for it. When people start living to 150 (or longer) you can bump it to first 100, then 125.
Assuming we haven't decided by then that the government just isn't properly equipped to take care of people in that manner and cancelled all the welfare programs. Or have slipped into a global social collapse and fallen back to 50 year lifespans and steam technology.
Didn't Congress raise the retirement age to 65 at some point? Isn't that why we have the whole option to get payments at 62 at a lesser amount?
Call them category 1 put them in medical camps. Doesen't anyone watch torchwood?
They weren't medical camps... they were death camps. And they implemented them ridiculously quickly, kinda like they did in the alternate timeline in "Turn Left" for really no reason at all.
This. One drug isn't going to solve all the problems of aging. As I understand it (i.e. very, very roughly), there are nearly a dozen sub-problems we need to solve to lick the aging problem, and each of them is pretty hard. Like what the hell do we do about telemeres?
No; you need to set up a secure tunnel to a non-verizon proxy and do your browsing that way. (Maybe you can opt out until they lobby to get those laws changed.) Like with shopping, privacy costs more than non-privacy.
The top executive staff, for the most part, is not us. They do not think like us, because if they did they would be unlikely to make it to a corporate executive or board of directors position. They do not act like us. Some of them may be very good people, and all of them are likely both driven and very fortunate, but it is a mistake to think that they think like us, or that their fears are the same as ours. Some of them are the same--but only some.
The personality type of a driven businessperson tends to be different than that of a driven (or non-driven) engineer.
Not always. But based on anecdotal evidence, I believe it to be true.
I am not convinced that possession of child pornography by an adult endangers children.
Not even the children being photographed? Are you that stupid or just that fucked in the head to think it's healthy for children to be photographed that way?
At any rate... I would think that the thought that some child somewhere could have been harmed in the process of taking such photos would be enough for a "man of god" to lose his fucking boner for a few minutes.
But hell let's all be liberal about it.
Making child porn obviously does. And I would guess that at least some significant percentage (and I can't decide whether it's more disturbing if th e percentage is low or high) is tied to trafficking victims. But possession? Police possess child porn in their evidence rooms--their possession doesn't harm children.
Payment for the production of child porn obviously does, either on the supply or demand side of the transaction.
But possession alone? Especially without any mens rea requirement? I don't see it. The consumer needs mental help, and the child may need mental help, and the producer needs to get the shit kicked out of him.
Consumption only creates demand in a market sense when someone profits from the production of content and someone is willing to pay something for that. You can argue that the content producer is selling to the consumer in exchange for his time, which the content producer resells for advertising dollars [depending on the exchange mechanism--I vaguely remember hearing tor is over-used for it, which says something really bad about how people use anonymity]. Also, consumption only creates demand when it is ongoing. The summary doesn't say this priest was allowed to continue collecting new child pornography on his computer. Maybe the Bishop lit the computer on fire, hit it with a sledgehammer, and beat the crap out of the priest responsible before not reporting it to police. It's also possible that the Bishop learned this during confession, which brings up other issues.
I think without evidence I am not willing to call someone a "possible pedophile" for possession alone. Everyone is a possible pedophile. Labelling anyone a possible pedophile, however, is usually fearmongering. There is also the issue that I am not sure what age we are talking about--I have far less of a problem if we're talking about seventeen-year-olds than I do if we're talking about eight-year-olds.
As I said, the pockets issue raises serious concerns.
It is also not clear that the person "turned a blind eye." There is a distinction between turning a blind eye and reporting someone to law enforcement. Engaging law enforcement carries with it consequences that are difficult to control and that may be unjust. If a pastor makes sure that that priest is never alone with a child, for example, that is not turning a blind eye. Whether punishment is appropriate depends on whether his failure to report is blameworthy. On the facts of the summary, I have no reason to believe that the Bishop did not take other remedial action.
If he had actual knowledge of abuse, that would be different. If the pockets thing is true, that moves it closer to that range where there may be a problem. At that point they should have been talking to their lawyer. Anything more than that and they would have started needing to talk to social services or parents--someone in case there is an actual issue where the child might need counseling.
Also, on the conspiracy: look up the definition of conspiracy. You sound like a raging anti-Catholic when you say that, because it doesn't sound like a remotely reasonable interpretation of the facts.
The picture did come from somewhere--which goes to the producer, not the consumer. Unless the consumer is paying for it.
The searching pockets for candy is different; I did not see that bit.
Endangered children *ARE* one of the exceptions, hence "covering up molestation--particularly ongoing molestation." I am not convinced that possession of child pornography by an adult endangers children. If there is any good evidence on the topic, I might chance my mind--but for obvious reasons, it's not the kind of study you can get IRB approval for.
Slashdot Mirror
True, local booksellers have a legitimate grievance, and one that is much more problematic with amazon than it was when it was only the publishers who were doing it and is much more problematic when people can buy from amazon immediately than when there was mail order.
But that difference is one of degree--an important difference of degree, I grant, and one which should be considered carefully, but still not a fundamental change of policy, when you think about it. Because books *Always* advertise. Sometimes de minimis by just having their imprint on them, but more frequently by listing other books by the author, and historically it was not uncommon to see order forms.
The double negative was there because it was in response to a negative. There was a complaint that it was inconsistent, so the double negative says not "it's consistent" but "it does not seem inconsistent," since it's disagreeing with the conclusion rather than undermining the conclusion. One indicates only that another conclusion is correct, whereas one indicates that that conclusion was wrong. The distinction may have little utility if "consistency" is considered in binary terms, aside from that it also says "they're wrong" rather than just "we're right and here's why." But on occasion the distinction matters, so it's not one I worry about unless I'm trying to be especially clear, as to a young child or a politician.
Libraries pay for books. And Amazon gets advertisement just from having their products used, but doesn't necessarily have to say "Go buy our book!"
Although it does not seem inconsistent with library policies not to endorse, at least no more so than selling a regular book is, because regular books have advertisements by other books by the author, etc...--some older books [and magazines] even have order forms in them.
There's a difference between a record of the books you currently have out and a record of the books you've ever checked out.
As for the task given to the DE, improving the US schools, they have done a poor job. So yes get rid of it and let the states and better yet localities assume more control over the local schools. This ultimately gives parents and voters more control over the schools because local officials are more accountable and removable than people in DC.
Right. Because state-based educational priorities and politics always work so well.
True. But that difference in consequences makes it very different than the norm.
FYI, those numbers actually sound high for slaves from Zimbabwe. (Well, maybe not with shipping, if you are ordering them from someone at the source rather than buying them after they've been trafficked.)
The student loan problem is massive, but of course is not nearly as bad as actual slavery, which is fairly common today. See River of Innocents, for example. Or google the Polaris Project.
You can't go into default in the normal sense. Most student loans can't be discharged in bankruptcy.
They can be discharged on death. Because unemployed angsty grads never have problems with suicide, Congress wanted to incentivize it. (Not really, that's just a side-effect. It really is to not burden the family of someone who dies.)
There are, however, really great loan forgiveness programs and loan repayment programs. It varies a little based on your exact loan, but generally, the current loans (which will change slightly next year, possibly) allow (1) income-adjusted repayment, where you repay the government based on your income and get the balance forgiven at the end of 30 years, regardless of how much you still owe, and (2) repayment for public service, where you get your student loans discharged after ten years of government service or not-for-profit work requiring the use of your degree.
Amazingly, I believe the Government accounts for these MASSIVE loan forgiveness expenditures in the budget by calling them budget-neutral and completely ignoring them.
They are great programs in several ways, which may be why they want to make them look good and not really account for them (they don't want to make programs which make public service work possible and which make college and graduate educations possible go away because of political pressures from the rich, who pay the most taxes and so would have the most interest in cutting those programs). Ultimately, of course, it is ridiculous to say they don't cost anything.
The assassination started a chain of events, and then people knew that war was a real possibility. Once war was a real possibility, everything was driven by railroad timetables--the complex movement of troops to the front was something that had been worked out very precisely and was very difficult, and once war became likely, every leader of every country was told "every day you don't order our troops to the front for war, we lose X miles of our country." Railroad timetables was a big driver that made it hard for people to step back.
As to the telegram exchange with the Czar, a better account of it is here:
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/kaiser-wilhelm-of-germany-and-czar-nicholas-of-russia-exchange-telegrams
(I am not an expert.)
Actually, armies all over the world are considered sustainable by default. That is to say, they will always receive enough money to at least keep their equipment in working order, regardless of the economic state of the rest of the country, since they are the only thing that stands between the state and utter annihilation. If any state is at the point where they can't even allocate this much, then they are teetering on the verge of bankruptcy, and not in the way the Eurozone is doing nowadays...
Frequently other states stand between the state and "utter annihilation." Do you think nobody invades Canada because of the power of the Canadian military? Their military isn't quite one guy with a shotgun and a winnebego--they have some armed forces. But they have nowhere near what they would need to defend their natural resources alone. The Uranium alone is worth a fortune.
They are not annihilated because other countries with substantial militaries would go to their defense--NATO generally, and more specifically Britain and the United States at the very least.
If GWB or Obama had waged war on Britain or Canada without extremely good cause, for example, it simply would not have worked. The collective establishment would have been like "WTF?" He might have been impeached or forced to resign, Congress would have defunded or outlawed the war, and good chunk of the officer corp might well have resigned before following those orders.
Effectively, Europe is safer because we kinda like Europe. (Well, at least Western Europe.) They can be absolutely bonkers (as we can be), but they have democracy, are not visibly alien to Americans, and they are part of our history books.
One nutcase in the wrong job can fail to prevent a war--but alone, he rarely can start one.
There was the Russian General who refused to launch his missiles when his system told him WW3 had started, and the Czar who let World War I start after he was begged to stop and think--though IIRC, he delayed it for a day or two.
The issue is not necessarily that it can be gotten around, so much as that it will make it harder for someone to use the information from an unauthorized location.
Well, Crowdsourcing Captchas are about to get a lot more interesting...
I hate to break it to you, but having 65 as a retirement age has ALREADY made the economy totally unbalanced.
Remember that the 65 retirement age was designed for a time when most people only lived to 50! If you made it to 65 you deserved a reward for actually surviving that long. Now almost everyone makes it to 65 and our Social support systems are taking up 50% (or more, depending on your country) of our GDP. Our economy all over the globe is in shambles trying to support a number of people the various welfare states were never designed to handle.
Frankly we need to raise the retirement age to 80 NOW. Make the boomers work for another 25 years or retire on their own money. But us Gen X and down shouldn't be paying for it. When people start living to 150 (or longer) you can bump it to first 100, then 125.
Assuming we haven't decided by then that the government just isn't properly equipped to take care of people in that manner and cancelled all the welfare programs. Or have slipped into a global social collapse and fallen back to 50 year lifespans and steam technology.
Didn't Congress raise the retirement age to 65 at some point? Isn't that why we have the whole option to get payments at 62 at a lesser amount?
Call them category 1 put them in medical camps. Doesen't anyone watch torchwood?
They weren't medical camps... they were death camps. And they implemented them ridiculously quickly, kinda like they did in the alternate timeline in "Turn Left" for really no reason at all.
Bullsh*t
This. One drug isn't going to solve all the problems of aging. As I understand it (i.e. very, very roughly), there are nearly a dozen sub-problems we need to solve to lick the aging problem, and each of them is pretty hard. Like what the hell do we do about telemeres?
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
No; you need to set up a secure tunnel to a non-verizon proxy and do your browsing that way. (Maybe you can opt out until they lobby to get those laws changed.) Like with shopping, privacy costs more than non-privacy.
Sure. If they had competitors. They hardly do. It is not a highly competitive market.
The top executive staff, for the most part, is not us. They do not think like us, because if they did they would be unlikely to make it to a corporate executive or board of directors position. They do not act like us. Some of them may be very good people, and all of them are likely both driven and very fortunate, but it is a mistake to think that they think like us, or that their fears are the same as ours. Some of them are the same--but only some.
The personality type of a driven businessperson tends to be different than that of a driven (or non-driven) engineer.
Not always. But based on anecdotal evidence, I believe it to be true.
Not even the children being photographed? Are you that stupid or just that fucked in the head to think it's healthy for children to be photographed that way?
At any rate... I would think that the thought that some child somewhere could have been harmed in the process of taking such photos would be enough for a "man of god" to lose his fucking boner for a few minutes.
But hell let's all be liberal about it.
Making child porn obviously does. And I would guess that at least some significant percentage (and I can't decide whether it's more disturbing if th e percentage is low or high) is tied to trafficking victims. But possession? Police possess child porn in their evidence rooms--their possession doesn't harm children.
Payment for the production of child porn obviously does, either on the supply or demand side of the transaction.
But possession alone? Especially without any mens rea requirement? I don't see it. The consumer needs mental help, and the child may need mental help, and the producer needs to get the shit kicked out of him.
Consumption only creates demand in a market sense when someone profits from the production of content and someone is willing to pay something for that. You can argue that the content producer is selling to the consumer in exchange for his time, which the content producer resells for advertising dollars [depending on the exchange mechanism--I vaguely remember hearing tor is over-used for it, which says something really bad about how people use anonymity]. Also, consumption only creates demand when it is ongoing. The summary doesn't say this priest was allowed to continue collecting new child pornography on his computer. Maybe the Bishop lit the computer on fire, hit it with a sledgehammer, and beat the crap out of the priest responsible before not reporting it to police. It's also possible that the Bishop learned this during confession, which brings up other issues.
I could, you know, RTFA. But this is slashdot.
I think without evidence I am not willing to call someone a "possible pedophile" for possession alone. Everyone is a possible pedophile. Labelling anyone a possible pedophile, however, is usually fearmongering. There is also the issue that I am not sure what age we are talking about--I have far less of a problem if we're talking about seventeen-year-olds than I do if we're talking about eight-year-olds.
As I said, the pockets issue raises serious concerns.
It is also not clear that the person "turned a blind eye." There is a distinction between turning a blind eye and reporting someone to law enforcement. Engaging law enforcement carries with it consequences that are difficult to control and that may be unjust. If a pastor makes sure that that priest is never alone with a child, for example, that is not turning a blind eye. Whether punishment is appropriate depends on whether his failure to report is blameworthy. On the facts of the summary, I have no reason to believe that the Bishop did not take other remedial action.
If he had actual knowledge of abuse, that would be different. If the pockets thing is true, that moves it closer to that range where there may be a problem. At that point they should have been talking to their lawyer. Anything more than that and they would have started needing to talk to social services or parents--someone in case there is an actual issue where the child might need counseling.
Also, on the conspiracy: look up the definition of conspiracy. You sound like a raging anti-Catholic when you say that, because it doesn't sound like a remotely reasonable interpretation of the facts.
And misdemeanor criminalization is still criminalization.
The picture did come from somewhere--which goes to the producer, not the consumer. Unless the consumer is paying for it.
The searching pockets for candy is different; I did not see that bit.
Endangered children *ARE* one of the exceptions, hence "covering up molestation--particularly ongoing molestation." I am not convinced that possession of child pornography by an adult endangers children. If there is any good evidence on the topic, I might chance my mind--but for obvious reasons, it's not the kind of study you can get IRB approval for.
Cockroach. Good survivor. Self-replicating.