Or do you really believe that? In which case I can only assume that upper management of large businesses is also a pure meritocracy, and women are just not doing well at it at present?
It would be easier to defend that position than yours... (and I dont agree with either FWIW)
Yes, its almost as if they dont already have plenty of existing laws that can be applied for anything that is ACTUALLY ILLEGAL. What this is pushing for is government oversight on the morality of discussions, and anyone who doesn't understand that deserves to suffer the consequences.
Someone online engaging in actual slander, actual threats, actual hate speech (already getting blurry there) already has LAWS THAT CAN BE APPLIED.
'On the internet' is not some kind of magic legal umbrella.
The larger concern here is farcebook et.al. acting like they have common-carrier like protections and yet ALSO engaging in selective removal of content. They cannot have it both ways.. Or at least they should not be able to.
Really? You think that something that gives an EXACT profile of unchanging physical attributes (your skull for many) cannot be identifiable, and can in any possible way be anonymized?
The 'benefit' to this is almost certainly that it will ALSO be collecting identifying information about the vehicles and occupants.
A lot of local and state governments are rushing to put technology around roads that allows personal tracking, by monitoring wifi, bluetooth and other similar emissions, and of course once they have enough of this, automated tolling, congestion charges, speeding and other driving fines, etc become SO much easier to levy 'for the good of everyone' (which generally means so the state can spend more and more on pet projects).
This is almost certainly the aim of this project citizen, please comply and be happy, or else.
Apple convinces people to give it money in return for products and services, thats fine. The government takes a certain total amount of money to fund shared infrastructure in general, and that money needs to come from somewhere. Every corporate using the lawyers to avoid paying such taxes means the general population in that area has to pay that money instead.
So that means Apple is directly using their legal muscle to force the other land owners in that area to pay more money to fund the additional infrastructure that Apple enjoys the use of. Apple is in effect stealing from its neighbors.
I think you mean thank you mr musk for providing the government with much cheaper launch vehicles so they can save money versus ula that they can now spend on the poor and disadvantaged.
I can remember the shared family tv, its the one in the living room, where the family still watch tv together at times. There are no other TVs, why waste life on that shit? really.
And no, they have not been replaced by streaming on to devices - that would be even worse.
I guess that depends if the subway counts as a government or private entity. If it was a government one, then wouldn't the right to free movement be a stronger argument? If it is private, then you are shit out of luck.
Of course these days they love to blur the lines... because representing the people is the LAST thing they want to do - where is the advantage in that (to themselves, of course..)
Feels old while thinking about the clone-286 he used running DOS and then desqview/286 after having upgraded his apple-II.. Then feels a bit sorry for the kids these days who missed out on such a golden age:)
Stand your ground laws require you to have a JUSTIFIABLE reason to believe your life is threatened. Someone entering your room unexpectedly is MOST CERTAINLY NOT THAT, otherwise there would be a trivial method of commiting murder. If the person entering came at you - perhaps. If the person smashed their way in - perhaps.
However, if they just entered, not a fucking chance - I suspect what, in your mind, you would consider your defense here would be to LIE about what happened and claim they 'came at you'. But sorry, lying to the court is not a justifiable defense, it is lying about murdering someone to cover your arse.
now, you are trying to twist a duty to retreat to apply here, It DOES NOT. for that to apply - a) they must reasonably expect that it IS your residence, and b) you must have actually warned them and given them a chance to retreat!
But no, you think that them simply entering gives you the right to murder them, NOT EVEN CLOSE. You would have had to warn them, ask them to leave, given them reason to believe you were the resident (remember, THEY THINK THEY ARE, AND WITH GOOD REASON), then it start becoming arguable, in such a state.
Stop pretending you are 'educating' anyone, you are making up shit and trying to pass your opinion (which is wrong) off as 'law'.
At present its the equivalent of saying 'letting a client whistle in your offices opens you to malicious attack because your Pc/smartphones microphones are digitising that data' without shoing ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that there is actually a workable volnerability via such a path. The mere fact that your microphones may not (ignoring the wonders of siri/google/etc/etc) actually be being used by any software that could have such a vulnerability seems irrelevant to there 'researchers'.
Their message is basically 'there is data! panic! run for the hills!'
Hell, next they will be warning people that a hacker could modulate the incoming mains power causing the lights to flicker in JUST the right way to cause a webcam attached to a computer to 'hack' the system via... well, they doont need the via part is seems, just hand waving and 'I'm a security expert! bow before me!'
Wow, you are SO anti-tech! awesome! And yet you are using a computer where I bet the time is displayed on the corner of your screen;) Not to mention pissing away your life posting on a slashvertisement..
Get with the times! Its not 1910 any more! These days through the wonders of mechanical science you can get self-winding mechanical watches;) Yes, they are a bit bleeding edge - only been around since the mid 1920s, but hey, live life on the edge! But yes, energy storage is only about 2-3 days, BUT they use amazing bio-engineering technology to self-charge!
Only problem is they tend to last a bit long, I have several from the 60s still going strong - make corp profitability less good - and I am supposed to feel GOOD about how much of a profit center I am for my logo supplier I think?
Actually, idiot... California has all but ceased controlled burn operations.
They have wrapped them up in so many 'air quality' regulations, 'water resource limitation' requirements and 'environmental impact evaluation' red tape that they are almost impossible.
Not to mention the fact that rich idiots who have no common sense keep using their 'leverage' to build fancy houses in places where controlled burn operations are generally pretty much a requirement, and this is what you get.
I'm not sure what kind of coniferous forests you think dont do well after a fire, but all the ones I have seen do very well.
Fire damage takes a lot longer to regenerate in some other kinds of slow growing forests with fast germinating seeds (english oak stands spring to mind), but most coniferous trees are almost exactly NOT that...
Then why is it awarded to this one victim of a widely distributed herbicide? The courts should have awarded it to medical care, cancer research, etc - or do they think they can award this to ever cancer sufferer who used roundup?
Actually it's much simpler than that. Their claim that their groups seperate out other infractions is not even basically correct. All it takes is two biases. For example if women having attacks are more likely to die (which they are add women tend to have them later in life) and male doctors are more likely to be given more difficult cases (which they are, as they tend to be more senior due to a longer time in the system) then we would see exactly this distribution.
How on earth a statistical paper can be published without even a basic understanding of statistics is ridiculous. Of course the reason it can be is it's conclusion is politically motivated and happily accepted of course.
Of course there is. Trees and plants suffer terrible in an environment of increased warmth, rainfall, and co2 as the existing models predict.
Cannt you see how that would created a positive feedback?
(Rolls eyes while feeling smug about (electric) cycling down to the cafe before tucking in to a few double lattes followed by imported beer and foods, posting from a new iPhone X of course)
Slashdot Mirror
Sexist much?
Or do you really believe that? In which case I can only assume that upper management of large businesses is also a pure meritocracy, and women are just not doing well at it at present?
It would be easier to defend that position than yours... (and I dont agree with either FWIW)
Yes, its almost as if they dont already have plenty of existing laws that can be applied for anything that is ACTUALLY ILLEGAL.
What this is pushing for is government oversight on the morality of discussions, and anyone who doesn't understand that deserves to suffer the consequences.
Someone online engaging in actual slander, actual threats, actual hate speech (already getting blurry there) already has LAWS THAT CAN BE APPLIED.
'On the internet' is not some kind of magic legal umbrella.
The larger concern here is farcebook et.al. acting like they have common-carrier like protections and yet ALSO engaging in selective removal of content.
They cannot have it both ways.. Or at least they should not be able to.
Yep.
You cannot agree to a license until you have had an opportunity to read it.
WELL Established these days.
However, they can stipulate that you cannot use the item until you agree, so long as they can show that the license was reasonably presented to you.
Intel trying top prosecute anyone on this however would be... interesting PR.
Really? You think that something that gives an EXACT profile of unchanging physical attributes (your skull for many) cannot be identifiable, and can in any possible way be anonymized?
Interesting interpretation.
The 'benefit' to this is almost certainly that it will ALSO be collecting identifying information about the vehicles and occupants.
A lot of local and state governments are rushing to put technology around roads that allows personal tracking, by monitoring wifi, bluetooth and other similar emissions, and of course once they have enough of this, automated tolling, congestion charges, speeding and other driving fines, etc become SO much easier to levy 'for the good of everyone' (which generally means so the state can spend more and more on pet projects).
This is almost certainly the aim of this project citizen, please comply and be happy, or else.
No.
Apple convinces people to give it money in return for products and services, thats fine.
The government takes a certain total amount of money to fund shared infrastructure in general, and that money needs to come from somewhere.
Every corporate using the lawyers to avoid paying such taxes means the general population in that area has to pay that money instead.
So that means Apple is directly using their legal muscle to force the other land owners in that area to pay more money to fund the additional
infrastructure that Apple enjoys the use of. Apple is in effect stealing from its neighbors.
Simple really, isnt it.
I think you mean thank you mr musk for providing the government with much cheaper launch vehicles so they can save money versus ula that they can now spend on the poor and disadvantaged.
And you call yourself tough love?
I can remember the shared family tv, its the one in the living room, where the family still watch tv together at times.
There are no other TVs, why waste life on that shit? really.
And no, they have not been replaced by streaming on to devices - that would be even worse.
Just remember citizen, everything is voluntary, including the state allowing you to keep breathing.
Have a nice day.
I guess that depends if the subway counts as a government or private entity.
If it was a government one, then wouldn't the right to free movement be a stronger argument?
If it is private, then you are shit out of luck.
Of course these days they love to blur the lines... because representing the people is the LAST thing they want to do - where is the advantage in that (to themselves, of course..)
Feels old while thinking about the clone-286 he used running DOS and then desqview/286 after having upgraded his apple-II.. :)
Then feels a bit sorry for the kids these days who missed out on such a golden age
I assume you mean nethack, and why dont you still play it? ;) ;)
https://www.nethack.org/
3.6.1 is out these days
Stand your ground laws require you to have a JUSTIFIABLE reason to believe your life is threatened.
Someone entering your room unexpectedly is MOST CERTAINLY NOT THAT, otherwise there would be a trivial method of commiting murder.
If the person entering came at you - perhaps.
If the person smashed their way in - perhaps.
However, if they just entered, not a fucking chance - I suspect what, in your mind, you would consider your defense here would be to LIE about what happened and claim they 'came at you'.
But sorry, lying to the court is not a justifiable defense, it is lying about murdering someone to cover your arse.
now, you are trying to twist a duty to retreat to apply here, It DOES NOT. for that to apply - a) they must reasonably expect that it IS your residence, and b) you must have actually warned them and given them a chance to retreat!
But no, you think that them simply entering gives you the right to murder them, NOT EVEN CLOSE.
You would have had to warn them, ask them to leave, given them reason to believe you were the resident (remember, THEY THINK THEY ARE, AND WITH GOOD REASON), then it start becoming arguable, in such a state.
Stop pretending you are 'educating' anyone, you are making up shit and trying to pass your opinion (which is wrong) off as 'law'.
No, its not.
At present its the equivalent of saying 'letting a client whistle in your offices opens you to malicious attack because your Pc/smartphones microphones are digitising that data' without shoing ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that there is actually a workable volnerability via such a path.
The mere fact that your microphones may not (ignoring the wonders of siri/google/etc/etc) actually be being used by any software that could have such a vulnerability seems irrelevant to there 'researchers'.
Their message is basically 'there is data! panic! run for the hills!'
Hell, next they will be warning people that a hacker could modulate the incoming mains power causing the lights to flicker in JUST the right way to cause a webcam attached to a computer to 'hack' the system via... well, they doont need the via part is seems, just hand waving and 'I'm a security expert! bow before me!'
Wow, you are SO anti-tech! awesome! ;)
And yet you are using a computer where I bet the time is displayed on the corner of your screen
Not to mention pissing away your life posting on a slashvertisement..
Get with the times! Its not 1910 any more! ;)
These days through the wonders of mechanical science you can get self-winding mechanical watches
Yes, they are a bit bleeding edge - only been around since the mid 1920s, but hey, live life on the edge!
But yes, energy storage is only about 2-3 days, BUT they use amazing bio-engineering technology to self-charge!
Only problem is they tend to last a bit long, I have several from the 60s still going strong - make corp profitability
less good - and I am supposed to feel GOOD about how much of a profit center I am for my logo supplier I think?
Actually, idiot... California has all but ceased controlled burn operations.
They have wrapped them up in so many 'air quality' regulations, 'water resource limitation' requirements and 'environmental impact evaluation' red tape that they are almost impossible.
Not to mention the fact that rich idiots who have no common sense keep using their 'leverage' to build fancy houses in places where controlled burn operations are generally pretty much a requirement, and this is what you get.
Hence they have this problem.
Simple, really.
I'm not sure what kind of coniferous forests you think dont do well after a fire, but all the ones I have seen do very well.
Fire damage takes a lot longer to regenerate in some other kinds of slow growing forests with fast germinating seeds (english oak stands spring to mind), but most coniferous trees are almost exactly NOT that...
Because of the discovery of HT based cross-domain security issues perhaps?
Great!
I claim ShanghaiBill causes brain cancer from reading the shite he posts! who wants to join me in a class action?
After all, we dont need proof, our 'day in court' is all that matters (that and the massive lottery payout)
Then why is it awarded to this one victim of a widely distributed herbicide?
The courts should have awarded it to medical care, cancer research, etc - or do they think they can award this to ever cancer sufferer who used roundup?
Actually it's much simpler than that.
Their claim that their groups seperate out other infractions is not even basically correct.
All it takes is two biases.
For example if women having attacks are more likely to die (which they are add women tend to have them later in life) and male doctors are more likely to be given more difficult cases (which they are, as they tend to be more senior due to a longer time in the system) then we would see exactly this distribution.
How on earth a statistical paper can be published without even a basic understanding of statistics is ridiculous.
Of course the reason it can be is it's conclusion is politically motivated and happily accepted of course.
But it is not science.
Of course there is.
Trees and plants suffer terrible in an environment of increased warmth, rainfall, and co2 as the existing models predict.
Cannt you see how that would created a positive feedback?
(Rolls eyes while feeling smug about (electric) cycling down to the cafe before tucking in to a few double lattes followed by imported beer and foods, posting from a new iPhone X of course)
I guess when you outsource all your production this is what you get..hmmm?
Or are you actually trying to claim that Americans are consuming less than those other countries?
Thought not..