Not having a law in no way requires said 7-11 to sell cigarettes, porn or alcohol to minors. Also, there is a minor but very crucial point of there being demonstrably harmful physical effects to two of those items. Or all three, if you include carpal tunnel.
(Arnold Schwarzenegger) said, 'We have a responsibility to our kids and our communities to protect against the effects of games that depict ultra-violent actions, just as we already do with movies.'" WRONG. WE don't have a responsibility, PARENTS have a responsibility. WE (as in "we the people") have a responsibility to make sure the Constitution doesn't get corrupted by well-intentioned feel-good attempts to legislate morality. Get it straight, ya big goof.
Re:Drivers *do* own the roads here.
on
Life Recorder
·
· Score: 1
I understand your point, but keep in mind that a bicyclist may also own a car, pay taxes, and thus "own" the road as well. If they choose to use an alternate form of transportation on "their" road, then it's their right to do so. If bike traffic becomes an issue on a particular road, then the city can pass an ordinance forbidding bicycle traffic on that road, at least during rush hours (the one you mentioned sounds like a prime candidate for such an ordinance). And as for giving tickets to cyclists who are reckless or violate rules of the road? I agree 100%.
No kidding! We made our own entertainment as kids. We played games, and not just the tame ones like "I spy" and the like. We made our OWN games, thus increasing our creativity! We played games like, "What's that smell?" and "Does this hurt?" and "Let's make the veins pop out on the driver's forehead"! And, of course, the ever popular "I'm not touching you!" while waggling a finger mere millimeters away from your siblings body after being instructed not to touch them. This last game was a real challenge, as a pothole or sudden change of direction could jostle you just enough to come into contact with your sibling, and therefore breaking the "rules" and getting you into trouble.
As has been stated, bicycles are traffic. They have every right (legally speaking, at least where I live) to be on the road. The fact that they slow down traffic isn't a valid complaint. Some drivers slow down traffic by driving 10+ miles per hour under the speed limit. They can legally do so. The speed limit is intended to limit how fast you can drive, it doesn't mean that a cyclist has to be able to go that fast in order to have the privilege to use that road.
Also, hugging the curb is a bad idea. There are often debris, parked cars, potholes, etc. to go around. This is why cyclists often have to swerve suddenly, to avoid those obstructions. It's better and safer to maintain a constant distance from the curb, even if the cyclist could spend most of his/her time much closer. I do agree about obeying traffic signals, though. Many cyclists will blow right through stop signs or traffic lights, make lane changes and turns with no signal, and things like that.
People are too impatient. Drivers think they own the road. Cyclists don't bother stopping when the law says they should. People need to just be patient and follow the rules that were set up to protect them. That, and being observant, will drastically cut down on the number of cycling accidents every year, in my opinion.
What would be cool is if they made this sensitive enough, and trained someone well enough, that they could use it to communicate while dreaming. Of course, all you'd see is line after line of "The blue fish is mellooooow... How's that snarker, Mr. Handle? Where did I leave my other lung..." and the like, but it would still be fascinating.
I predict a long series of Python quotes incoming. Allow me to post one of my all-time favorites:
Followers: "Only the true Messiah denies his divinity!" Brian "What?! Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right, I AM the Messiah!" Followers: "He is! He is the Messiah!" Brian: "Now, Fuck off!" *awkward pause* Followers: "How shall we fuck off, oh Lord?"
One of the better parts of an overall extremely funny movie. Also, I predict that this article on Slashdot will make all of his email problems so much better!
I almost always watch my Japanese animation in Japanese. There are a couple reasons for this, starting with the fact that sometimes awkward phrasing is needed in English to match the mouth flaps of the character. Also, I don't speak Japanese, so if the voice actor is horrible, I won't know it:P
It's more important to me that the voice fits the character, that it sounds right. And, often, the Japanese seem to do a better job of that then the Americans. Just my opinion and preference.
Anarchy is the perfect system of government, up until you start adding people. One is the optimum number for an anarchistic government. For two people, the weaker must constantly be concerned about being bullied by the stronger. With three, you have the possibility of factions. The more people you add, the less stable it gets as a system of government.
Because, if she didn't, there wouldn't have been a classic final showdown between Mal and the Operative. And robots like awesome showdowns just as much as anyone.
Guns themselves are not to blame, but they do make it incredibly easy to kill people. The physical effort involved in shooting someone to death as opposed to, say, bludgeoning them to death, is vastly different. That is not to say that guns or even the typical gun owner is at fault here, the issue is far more complex than that.
Basically, what it breaks down to is the government saying "It's indecent if we say it is". Which is the main problem I have with so-called "decency" laws in general
Also, why should you, the unpaid tech support guy, be the only one inconvenienced by their bad PC use habits? Make them go back to a vanilla install, figure out how to get all their settings back the way they like them, etc. Make it inconvenient. Maybe then, they'll be a little more cautious (or maybe they'll just keep calling you for every little thing they want to change, which is also possible).
Not to mention, full reinstall is the most sure way to be certain that you got ALL traces of the virus/malware off of the machine. Even a pro can miss something, especially when it's buried under ten other bad applications.
I'm not saying it's a valid excuse, but places like Geek Squad have a couple of problems, training and volume. The folks they hire are not really well trained, and the service counter has to get through a lot of PCs in one day. It's a lot easier to do a fresh install of Windows (most of which you can leave unattended) than it is to diagnose, hunt down and clean off a virus.
My own tech support horror story involved a bad video card, specifically the fan. It's my fault for being greedy, I suppose, since I was hoping these guys (not geek squad, Microcenter) would replace the card with a new one for me. Not only did that not happen, but they insisted that I give them all my passwords and leave the PC there for 3-7 days, not including the weekend. To which my response was, "wait a minute. You can fire the pc up and see the fan is not working. And you need my PC for up to 7 days AND you need my passwords? I don't think so!" I got into a bit of an argument with the staff, finally just left, got a fan, installed it myself and fixed the problem.
We've had a few contractors come in where I work. Every one of them has tons of MP3s, movies, etc. Where did they get that, I wonder? Why, working the tech support desk at some chain! All you need is a USB drive and inattentive management! No, I'm not giving my passwords to some support desk schlub, thanks.
"That is, assuming that my kid will wear it for more than 5 minutes in a row without trying to cut it off."
I don't have much experience with autistic children, but wouldn't the key to this being to convince him somehow that he wants to leave it on, like say it's a really cool watch, it looks good on him, etc. without ever alluding to the tracking capabilities of the device? It would depend a lot on his functionality, of course, but if he functions highly enough to actually take a liking to the device, then the problem would be more getting it off of him rather then having him leave it on.
I could be wrong, of course. As I said, I have little experience with autistic children.
What it boils down to is that you never let your attacker get total control over you. If you do, then you are reliant only on either their mercy or their incompetence for your survival, and neither is something you should bet your life on. Someone with a gun demands your wallet/purse/phone, whatever, yeah you give it to them because you are not giving them any more control then they already have. HOWEVER, if that person tries to enter your home with you, get you into a car, or tries to drag you off somewhere, that means that they are trying to take away the chance of you even running away. Don't let them do that.
I told my niece and nephew this, also, when they were young. If someone tries to get you into a car, you fight like a maniac, and when you can, you run away. Even if they have a gun, run away. Even though that runs counter to what a lot of people think (that you always obey someone with a gun) you're better off running and hoping they either won't shoot or that they're a lousy shot than you are in hoping they will let you go relatively unharmed once they finish doing whatever it is they want to do to you.
Which is why I dislike tasers and pepper spray. If used properly, they are a wonderful alternative to lethal force in many situations. However, because they AREN'T guns, police are more likely to use them in situations where they really shouldn't. There is never a reason to stun someone who is not a threat. There are stories about police using tasers and pepper spray to force compliance with police orders from individuals already in custody ("do what we say, or we'll hurt you", sounds like torture to me).
Police need to be able to control situations when it is needed, but they also are human and as prone to anyone to abusing power. Whenever an officer discharges a taser, there should be the same type of review as if they had fired a gun.
It's easier, better, and more effective in both the long and short run to world-proof a child than it is to child-proof the world. I agree with you 100%.
No worries, we can make up for the death rate by increasing the volume.
No, I'm not serious. That would be horrible.
Hopefully, artificial "baby farms" isn't something we'll goof around with until AFTER we figure out how to make an artificial womb that is as safe as a natural one. Most women I know, though, would gladly take the risks for the feeling of bonding. It would probably feel less like "your" baby if you never carried it (no uterus of my own, so I can't say for sure).
I believe that the only people who would ever look into this on a large scale would be women unable to carry a fetus for whatever medical reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Not having a law in no way requires said 7-11 to sell cigarettes, porn or alcohol to minors. Also, there is a minor but very crucial point of there being demonstrably harmful physical effects to two of those items. Or all three, if you include carpal tunnel.
(Arnold Schwarzenegger) said, 'We have a responsibility to our kids and our communities to protect against the effects of games that depict ultra-violent actions, just as we already do with movies.'"
WRONG. WE don't have a responsibility, PARENTS have a responsibility. WE (as in "we the people") have a responsibility to make sure the Constitution doesn't get corrupted by well-intentioned feel-good attempts to legislate morality. Get it straight, ya big goof.
I understand your point, but keep in mind that a bicyclist may also own a car, pay taxes, and thus "own" the road as well. If they choose to use an alternate form of transportation on "their" road, then it's their right to do so. If bike traffic becomes an issue on a particular road, then the city can pass an ordinance forbidding bicycle traffic on that road, at least during rush hours (the one you mentioned sounds like a prime candidate for such an ordinance). And as for giving tickets to cyclists who are reckless or violate rules of the road? I agree 100%.
No kidding! We made our own entertainment as kids. We played games, and not just the tame ones like "I spy" and the like. We made our OWN games, thus increasing our creativity! We played games like, "What's that smell?" and "Does this hurt?" and "Let's make the veins pop out on the driver's forehead"! And, of course, the ever popular "I'm not touching you!" while waggling a finger mere millimeters away from your siblings body after being instructed not to touch them. This last game was a real challenge, as a pothole or sudden change of direction could jostle you just enough to come into contact with your sibling, and therefore breaking the "rules" and getting you into trouble.
Ah, good times. Good times.
As has been stated, bicycles are traffic. They have every right (legally speaking, at least where I live) to be on the road. The fact that they slow down traffic isn't a valid complaint. Some drivers slow down traffic by driving 10+ miles per hour under the speed limit. They can legally do so. The speed limit is intended to limit how fast you can drive, it doesn't mean that a cyclist has to be able to go that fast in order to have the privilege to use that road.
Also, hugging the curb is a bad idea. There are often debris, parked cars, potholes, etc. to go around. This is why cyclists often have to swerve suddenly, to avoid those obstructions. It's better and safer to maintain a constant distance from the curb, even if the cyclist could spend most of his/her time much closer. I do agree about obeying traffic signals, though. Many cyclists will blow right through stop signs or traffic lights, make lane changes and turns with no signal, and things like that.
People are too impatient. Drivers think they own the road. Cyclists don't bother stopping when the law says they should. People need to just be patient and follow the rules that were set up to protect them. That, and being observant, will drastically cut down on the number of cycling accidents every year, in my opinion.
An "accident" that cost lives, remember. You can't just say "Oh, it was an accident" and assume that makes it all better. It most certainly does not.
What would be cool is if they made this sensitive enough, and trained someone well enough, that they could use it to communicate while dreaming.
Of course, all you'd see is line after line of "The blue fish is mellooooow... How's that snarker, Mr. Handle? Where did I leave my other lung..." and the like, but it would still be fascinating.
I predict a long series of Python quotes incoming. Allow me to post one of my all-time favorites:
Followers: "Only the true Messiah denies his divinity!"
Brian "What?! Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right, I AM the Messiah!"
Followers: "He is! He is the Messiah!"
Brian: "Now, Fuck off!"
*awkward pause*
Followers: "How shall we fuck off, oh Lord?"
One of the better parts of an overall extremely funny movie.
Also, I predict that this article on Slashdot will make all of his email problems so much better!
I almost always watch my Japanese animation in Japanese. There are a couple reasons for this, starting with the fact that sometimes awkward phrasing is needed in English to match the mouth flaps of the character. Also, I don't speak Japanese, so if the voice actor is horrible, I won't know it :P
It's more important to me that the voice fits the character, that it sounds right. And, often, the Japanese seem to do a better job of that then the Americans. Just my opinion and preference.
You're questioning him. Don't question him. He said it himself, it's definitive. We have to take his word on it!
Anarchy is the perfect system of government, up until you start adding people. One is the optimum number for an anarchistic government. For two people, the weaker must constantly be concerned about being bullied by the stronger. With three, you have the possibility of factions. The more people you add, the less stable it gets as a system of government.
But yeah with just one person, it works great! :P
Thanks for the reminder to take this hysteria with a grain of salt until some proof is actually obtained. I'm embarrassed that I needed it, honestly.
Anyone who thinks they can get their child to go along with a lie should remember these immortal words:
"You said we did this for the show"
Because, if she didn't, there wouldn't have been a classic final showdown between Mal and the Operative. And robots like awesome showdowns just as much as anyone.
Guns themselves are not to blame, but they do make it incredibly easy to kill people. The physical effort involved in shooting someone to death as opposed to, say, bludgeoning them to death, is vastly different. That is not to say that guns or even the typical gun owner is at fault here, the issue is far more complex than that.
Basically, what it breaks down to is the government saying "It's indecent if we say it is". Which is the main problem I have with so-called "decency" laws in general
Also, why should you, the unpaid tech support guy, be the only one inconvenienced by their bad PC use habits? Make them go back to a vanilla install, figure out how to get all their settings back the way they like them, etc. Make it inconvenient. Maybe then, they'll be a little more cautious (or maybe they'll just keep calling you for every little thing they want to change, which is also possible).
Not to mention, full reinstall is the most sure way to be certain that you got ALL traces of the virus/malware off of the machine. Even a pro can miss something, especially when it's buried under ten other bad applications.
I'm not saying it's a valid excuse, but places like Geek Squad have a couple of problems, training and volume. The folks they hire are not really well trained, and the service counter has to get through a lot of PCs in one day. It's a lot easier to do a fresh install of Windows (most of which you can leave unattended) than it is to diagnose, hunt down and clean off a virus.
My own tech support horror story involved a bad video card, specifically the fan. It's my fault for being greedy, I suppose, since I was hoping these guys (not geek squad, Microcenter) would replace the card with a new one for me. Not only did that not happen, but they insisted that I give them all my passwords and leave the PC there for 3-7 days, not including the weekend. To which my response was, "wait a minute. You can fire the pc up and see the fan is not working. And you need my PC for up to 7 days AND you need my passwords? I don't think so!" I got into a bit of an argument with the staff, finally just left, got a fan, installed it myself and fixed the problem.
We've had a few contractors come in where I work. Every one of them has tons of MP3s, movies, etc. Where did they get that, I wonder? Why, working the tech support desk at some chain! All you need is a USB drive and inattentive management! No, I'm not giving my passwords to some support desk schlub, thanks.
"That is, assuming that my kid will wear it for more than 5 minutes in a row without trying to cut it off."
I don't have much experience with autistic children, but wouldn't the key to this being to convince him somehow that he wants to leave it on, like say it's a really cool watch, it looks good on him, etc. without ever alluding to the tracking capabilities of the device? It would depend a lot on his functionality, of course, but if he functions highly enough to actually take a liking to the device, then the problem would be more getting it off of him rather then having him leave it on.
I could be wrong, of course. As I said, I have little experience with autistic children.
What it boils down to is that you never let your attacker get total control over you. If you do, then you are reliant only on either their mercy or their incompetence for your survival, and neither is something you should bet your life on. Someone with a gun demands your wallet/purse/phone, whatever, yeah you give it to them because you are not giving them any more control then they already have. HOWEVER, if that person tries to enter your home with you, get you into a car, or tries to drag you off somewhere, that means that they are trying to take away the chance of you even running away. Don't let them do that.
I told my niece and nephew this, also, when they were young. If someone tries to get you into a car, you fight like a maniac, and when you can, you run away. Even if they have a gun, run away. Even though that runs counter to what a lot of people think (that you always obey someone with a gun) you're better off running and hoping they either won't shoot or that they're a lousy shot than you are in hoping they will let you go relatively unharmed once they finish doing whatever it is they want to do to you.
And lo, a million geeks rushed out to form their own nation
travelling by whatever craft they could find that would float
by sailboat and barge, by raft and by dinghy
And, when they arrived at the great floating sea of garbage
The call went out:
"Use your hairdryers, use your heatguns!
"Push the mass to the center, melt it together!
"Soon, we shal have an island paradise of our own!"
And the geeks let up a mighty cheer
Until one, far in the back, raised the ominous question,
"So, where's the outlet?"
Which is why I dislike tasers and pepper spray. If used properly, they are a wonderful alternative to lethal force in many situations. However, because they AREN'T guns, police are more likely to use them in situations where they really shouldn't. There is never a reason to stun someone who is not a threat. There are stories about police using tasers and pepper spray to force compliance with police orders from individuals already in custody ("do what we say, or we'll hurt you", sounds like torture to me).
Police need to be able to control situations when it is needed, but they also are human and as prone to anyone to abusing power. Whenever an officer discharges a taser, there should be the same type of review as if they had fired a gun.
It's easier, better, and more effective in both the long and short run to world-proof a child than it is to child-proof the world. I agree with you 100%.
I for one welcome our firm, C-cup overlords.
Well, now, aren't you the optimist! Sort of a "Cup is half full" kind of a guy, I suppose.
Sadly, most women who go bra-less most of the times don't have breasts so much as kneepads with nipples. Truly, it is a tragedy!
No worries, we can make up for the death rate by increasing the volume.
No, I'm not serious. That would be horrible.
Hopefully, artificial "baby farms" isn't something we'll goof around with until AFTER we figure out how to make an artificial womb that is as safe as a natural one. Most women I know, though, would gladly take the risks for the feeling of bonding. It would probably feel less like "your" baby if you never carried it (no uterus of my own, so I can't say for sure).
I believe that the only people who would ever look into this on a large scale would be women unable to carry a fetus for whatever medical reason.