And, obviously, there are self-appointed experts eager to choose who is allowed to breed. Marvelous!
Why don't we just do a fitness test instead of appointing experts?
Pool the limited number of "breeding tokens" and use a volley of competitive strategy games to eliminate people from being awarded a token; starting with ---- Must score 100,000 points on Tetris within 3 attempts.
Next competitive Warcraft II, Civilization, then Chess, Scrabble, Scotland Yard, Acquire, Shogun , Chutes and Ladders, Euphoria, Amerigo, Go, Stratego, Carcassonne, Takenoko, Chronology, Ticket to Ride, Clue, Agricola, and Monopoly.
Each breeding candidate (Both Females and Males must have qualified for breeding) must choose....
Entry Fee: All candidates pay a $100 entry fee, it shall be illegal for any 3rd party to pay, gift, or otherwise provide entry fee in support a candidate in paying. The expense is non-deductible, and breeding candidates will be subject to a financial audit at their expense to prove personal ability to pay derived from candidate's own labor. Candidates without thorough records of all finances or who use primary cash or under-the-table deals to transact are ineligible.
Options (C), (D), (E), and (F) require an additional $2000 entry fee the first time to pay for administration of fitness tests. Most breeding candidates will want option (A) or (B).
Option (A) Lottery -- 10% of the government quota of allowed annual breeding events will be available through this option, when supplies run out, successful candidates will be in a waiting list --- Candidates will purchase lottery tickets for $1 each. They must choose 6 numbers between 1 and 60, which will be drawn randomly by a ball machine with an equal chance for each number. Candidates must get 5 numbers accurate to become a potential breeding candidate. Before the drawing, candidates will be given a randomized choice of 2 of the above games they must play against everyone who picked option (A), their tickets will be voided if they are not in the top 40th percentile. To demonstrate physical fitness, prospects will be given arm wrestling challenges with 5 other randomized breeding candidates, and those in less than the 40th percentile will be eliminated before the lottery drawing.
Option (B) Fight to the death -- 40% of the government quota of allowed annual breeding events will be available through this option --- Candidates will be given a choice of hand weapons and then placed in an arena. Each candidate will have to face off in 5 battles of life and death with randomized other Option B candidates, If the candidate surrenders or dies in battle they are eliminated. If they pass 5 battles, then they will pick two board games from the above list to demonstrate mental fitness and Play against 5 others who chose option (B), they must be in the top 40% of competitors.
Option (C) Be judged upon performance in 16 of the above games --- 30% of the government quota of allowed annual breeding events will be available through this option ---- Must play each competitive games 5 times against 5 different randomized sets of other candidates who picked option (C) and be within the top 60th-percentile of Wins/Losses or Points earned for every game to avoid elimination, Next to demonstrate physical fitness, stand on a scale to be weighed and show a weight less than 200 pounds, then next bench press 400 pounds 3 reps, then immediately afterward a clock starts and you have 16 minutes to complete a 5K marathon, they will repeat the physical challenge 5 times, and must be successful at least 3 out of 5.
Option (D) Start a profitable business or charity -- 10% of the government quota of allowed annual breeding events will be available through this option --- Demonstrate starting a business, or creating a profitable invention, and subject books to an independent auditor proving
You kind of left out a word. It would rephrase to two words: - environmental extremists.
Environmental "extremists "are influential however, and their ideas are likely to take hold with all. Especially with environmentalism; yesterday's extreme is tomorrow's everyday normal. Thus they're not really extremists ----- that's just the temporary status of some, while the rest of the environmentalists catch up with them.
Look how Global Warming theory progressed?
Not only did the idea and its proponents shift over 15 years from extremists to "mainstream" status the idea that humans need to sacrifice industry and cars "To save the planet", but now research into the subject is itself a multi-billion$$$ market.
Also, this concept called "scientific consensus" has been invented
Which is essentially means extremists can get together as a group and certify their own results, as when enough extremists get together it automatically becomes normal and infallible.
Thus the "environmental extremists" have a way of grouping together and becoming just environmentalists, and making other environmentalists more closely match their ideas and philosophies.
If I lose my car, I don't expect Toyota to give me a new one for free.
No..... but if a losable component falls out on the road and gets lost while it's under warranty, they might replace that for free.
In my experience; however, Autos are a racket..... You'll pay for the labor to service defective components, even when you lost Nothing, and the vehicle is still under warranty.
Point of order: How do you "lose" an entire car anyway? They're larger in size than you.... they should be almost impossible to misplace.
That kind of thing is what we buy auto insurance for.
Anyways, losing a vehicle is definitely nothing within the same ballpark as losing a Pen or an earphone.
The amazing thing is the manufacturer charges $150 for a crappy pair of wireless headphones replacing formerly perfectly serviceable wired earbuds to solve a problem they created.
Coercion, which is encoded in the law as a duress crime, is a criminal act.
Unless the driver is threatening physical harm if no sex, then it's not coercion. A duress crime only occurs in case physical abuse is threatened, or extortion (blackmail)
Its wishful thinking. The president cannot be impeached based on failure or refusal to enforce or implement a law. Just like the Senators cannot be impeached for refusing to confirm Obama's nominations to the supreme court.
The president can Only be impeached if to be tried for "high crimes and misdemeanors". Attempting to unilaterally disband a department would not be a crime per se, however, someone would be likely to sue and get an injunction / order from a judge for the disbandment to cease
If you look at the article's headline on the face of it, absent the article, It sounds like a deal with Google intelligence to share more private/personal data about Google's wordwide users (including US users) with Cuba's government.
"Allowing faster access to the companies data"
Let's not forget what kind of data Google has on us, I mean..... things like our full browsing history..... very interesting to some governments of the world, not just our own government, I'm sure.
Business necessity isn't mer inconvenience or mere benefit ---- nothing like "We wanted to save a little bit of money, and we needed to do X to reduce the cost, then found these groups of potential job seekers were the only ones we could exploit via a complex racket involving defrauding the US government", The defense to be successful would have to be something of material necessity such as "It's essential for us to apply certain objective security requirements to reject applicants who have a criminal record, even though prospects with a criminal record are disproportionately African-american, because the employees for this job title will be in a position handling money or working with confidential customer data, And the job cannot be done safely without employees for this position meeting this requirement"
I think they can argue it's not discrimination by listing legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons why they picked the Indians over Americans.
That doesn't necessarily work anymore, now that the courts have invented Disparate Impact Theory. Even actions that could seem rational for non-discriminatory reasons and seem neutral on their face could still result in being sued over discrimination Via disparate impact.
It most certainly is illegal in situations where one person is in a position of authority over another.
In the US it's generally a Civil matter for most states, unless the driver has attempted rape, bodily harm, or committed an assault or battery, police have no involvement with no criminal violations committed.
The driver could very well have still 'hit on them' or told them 'Agree to Sex or get out of my car', and there will be nothing the police could do, although there might be action for a claim in civil court.
It will translate to lower consumer prices over time Versus hiring human workers for the roles.
It's a shift that is being accelerated by economic incentives in the form of higher minimum wages for human workers. The minimum wages being forced higher for human workers make it necessary to either automate or raise prices for these companies to survive, But consumers don't want to pay the higher prices, so they'd lose business and maybe become non-profitable ---- the automation will allow fast food to continue to be a business that exists, maybe.
This assumes Obama doesn't sign the TPP before the end of December.
He could sign the agreement, and convene the senate, or failing that, the agreement will automatically go into affect, then Trump won't be able to kill it.....
Of course, women that let a man buy them dinner and a few drinks because they wants a free dinner and some drinks and have every intention of telling him to fuck off are nothing to admire either.
Both are Abusive/Disrespectful concepts for someone to go out and have the idea of doing, and BarbaraHudson's rant about this supposedly being the case is Off-topic and Sexist, for some reason, calling out men alone on supposedly thinking "supper and a few drinks entitles them to sex".
You don't go into a respectable bar to buy a drink and expect the bartender will attempt to make a sexual pass at you, Or make a pass at the bartender and start up sexual relations in this public setting.
They would get fired for that shit, Or management would get the bouncer to come kick you out of the bar and re-arrange your face/otherwise mess you up so bad as to make sure ya didn't even think of trying to come back, one or the other.
Businesses have reputations and images to maintain, and cannot accept having that tainted by inappropriate behavior for transaction of the company's intended product.
Next thing you know you will have discounted rides and "Sex" expected as part of the payment for the transaction
It may be a completely natural extension to the platform, but I could see why Uber might have obvious objections, As this potentially eliminates their business model ---- it is a potential compromise on the professionalism, And this is fodder for competitors to get more regulations passed to protect consumers from Uber drivers.
Correct..... the moment the company begins to directly spell out details of worker mannerisms and conduct about the way people actually behave or present themselves while working, rather than the way the job is to be completed, they begin to get in trouble as no longer contracting these people, but are just an employee trying to evade regulations and taxes, they are employing them, since they specify not only work to be accomplished but required worker conditions as well.
No-one should still have a Note 7 in their pocket -- to do so is negligence on the consumer's part.
Maybe..... out of 2.5 million units manufactured, about 35 have had major problems.
What do you suppose the chances are that there are customers who just don't know?
What about people who already had them replaced and got their replacements in October, and then there were reports the replacements were unsafe.
That's kind of ridiculous when you think about it. At some point, there are going to be people who are reasonably fed-up with Samsung on this, and rationally chose to keep their first run replacement Notes, as Samsung has yet to deliver a fixed one......
Indeed; Most fires are started by space heaters, followed by ones that start in the kitchen, I believe the next most common place is the garage, followed by faulty electrical wiring (Common in rental units with cheap landlords). You should be scared.....
You had the choice to accept that risk when you chose what city to live in and what kind of people to surround yourself, or whether to buy your own lot on a farm out in the sticks a mile from your nearest neighbor.
Then you must comply with whatever rules your landlord sets down.
You have the right to NOT follow them and accept the consequences, however.
Also, I've never heard of a Landlord inspecting tenants cellphones or personal effects to look for hazardous items.
Ultimately it's your responsibility what you do with your property, that's the point though --- the phone is YOUR property, Not Samsung's.
If your Landlord finds out you're using one and decides to evict you, that's their choice then, and they can do that --- they just can't physically stop you from using Your Samsung which you own as a mobile phone, without going to jail for assault, I mean.
What if you live in an apartment or townhouse? Would you want your neighbors making that choice for you as well?
Your neighbors don't have that decision. They had the decision not to move into the same Townhouse or Apartment as you, though, Or the landlord had the decision to not allow you to move in though.
If anything happens, You are liable to your neighbors for their damages AND the Manufacturer is liable to you.
It's not infallible. It's just that Manufacturers are still liable for product defects, AND releasing an update does not relieve them from this liability, unless you are provided reasonable advance notice (90 Days before the problem) to apply the update first.
Slashdot Mirror
And, obviously, there are self-appointed experts eager to choose who is allowed to breed. Marvelous!
Why don't we just do a fitness test instead of appointing experts?
Pool the limited number of "breeding tokens" and use a volley of competitive strategy games to eliminate people from being awarded a token;
starting with ---- Must score 100,000 points on Tetris within 3 attempts.
Next competitive Warcraft II, Civilization, then Chess, Scrabble, Scotland Yard, Acquire, Shogun , Chutes and Ladders, Euphoria, Amerigo, Go, Stratego, Carcassonne, Takenoko, Chronology, Ticket to Ride, Clue, Agricola, and Monopoly.
Each breeding candidate (Both Females and Males must have qualified for breeding) must choose ....
Entry Fee: All candidates pay a $100 entry fee, it shall be illegal for any 3rd party to pay, gift, or otherwise provide entry fee in support a candidate in paying.
The expense is non-deductible, and breeding candidates will be subject to a financial audit at their expense to prove personal ability to pay derived from candidate's own labor. Candidates without thorough records of all finances or who use primary cash or under-the-table deals to transact are ineligible.
Options (C), (D), (E), and (F) require an additional $2000 entry fee the first time to pay for administration of fitness tests.
Most breeding candidates will want option (A) or (B).
Option (A) Lottery -- 10% of the government quota of allowed annual breeding events will be available through this option, when supplies run out, successful candidates will be in a waiting list --- Candidates will purchase lottery tickets for $1 each. They must choose 6 numbers between 1 and 60, which will be drawn randomly by a ball machine with an equal chance for each number. Candidates must get 5 numbers accurate to become a potential breeding candidate. Before the drawing, candidates will be given a randomized choice of 2 of the above games they must play against everyone who picked option (A), their tickets will be voided if they are not in the top 40th percentile. To demonstrate physical fitness, prospects will be given arm wrestling challenges with 5 other randomized breeding candidates, and those in less than the 40th percentile will be eliminated before the lottery drawing.
Option (B) Fight to the death -- 40% of the government quota of allowed annual breeding events will be available through this option --- Candidates will be given a choice of hand weapons and then placed in an arena. Each candidate will have to face off in 5 battles of life and death with randomized other Option B candidates, If the candidate surrenders or dies in battle they are eliminated. If they pass 5 battles, then they will pick two board games from the above list to demonstrate mental fitness and Play against 5 others who chose option (B), they must be in the top 40% of competitors.
Option (C) Be judged upon performance in 16 of the above games --- 30% of the government quota of allowed annual breeding events will be available through this option ---- Must play each competitive games 5 times against 5 different randomized sets of other candidates who picked option (C) and be within the top 60th-percentile of Wins/Losses or Points earned for every game to avoid elimination, Next to demonstrate physical fitness, stand on a scale to be weighed and show a weight less than 200 pounds, then next bench press 400 pounds 3 reps, then immediately afterward a clock starts and you have 16 minutes to complete a 5K marathon, they will repeat the physical challenge 5 times, and must be successful at least 3 out of 5.
Option (D) Start a profitable business or charity -- 10% of the government quota of allowed annual breeding events will be available through this option --- Demonstrate starting a business, or creating a profitable invention, and subject books to an independent auditor proving
You kind of left out a word. It would rephrase to two words: - environmental extremists.
Environmental "extremists "are influential however, and their ideas are likely to take hold with all.
Especially with environmentalism; yesterday's extreme is tomorrow's everyday normal.
Thus they're not really extremists ----- that's just the temporary status of some, while the rest of the environmentalists
catch up with them.
Look how Global Warming theory progressed?
Not only did the idea and its proponents shift over 15 years from extremists to "mainstream" status the idea that humans need to sacrifice industry and cars "To save the planet",
but now research into the subject is itself a multi-billion$$$ market.
Also, this concept called "scientific consensus" has been invented
Which is essentially means extremists can get together as a group and certify their own results, as when enough extremists get together it automatically becomes normal and infallible.
Thus the "environmental extremists" have a way of grouping together and becoming just environmentalists,
and making other environmentalists more closely match their ideas and philosophies.
If I lose my car, I don't expect Toyota to give me a new one for free.
No..... but if a losable component falls out on the road and gets lost while
it's under warranty, they might replace that for free.
In my experience; however, Autos are a racket..... You'll pay for the labor to service defective components,
even when you lost Nothing, and the vehicle is still under warranty.
Point of order: How do you "lose" an entire car anyway? They're larger in size than you.... they should be almost impossible to misplace.
That kind of thing is what we buy auto insurance for.
Anyways, losing a vehicle is definitely nothing within the same ballpark as losing a Pen or an earphone.
I think it could be argued that profit is a business necessity, since without it a business wouldn't exist.
Yes about profit being necessary for a business, No about increased gain or profit alone making it a business necessity.
That might work as an argument by the Outsourced organization, that They could not be competitive.
That argument doesn't work for Disney hiring the outsourced organization.
The amount of costs reduced by the change are a small percentage of the company's overall profit, so
they're not necessary for doing business.
The law doesn't say you cannot be sued. The law makes certain contractual terms void.
The possibility still exists that you could be sued.
Your chance of victory may be higher and your cost of winning that suit might be lower than otherwise.
If I lose a pen, I don't expect Bic to give me a new one for free.
They won't give you one for free, but Bic won't charge you 50 bucks either.
The amazing thing is the manufacturer charges $150 for a crappy pair of wireless headphones
replacing formerly perfectly serviceable wired earbuds to
solve a problem they created.
Coercion, which is encoded in the law as a duress crime, is a criminal act.
Unless the driver is threatening physical harm if no sex, then it's not coercion.
A duress crime only occurs in case physical abuse is threatened, or extortion (blackmail)
Its wishful thinking. The president cannot be impeached based on failure or refusal to enforce or implement a law. Just like the Senators cannot be impeached for refusing to confirm Obama's nominations to the supreme court.
The president can Only be impeached if to be tried for "high crimes and misdemeanors".
Attempting to unilaterally disband a department would not be a crime per se, however, someone would be likely to sue and get an injunction / order from a judge for the disbandment to cease
If you look at the article's headline on the face of it, absent the article, It sounds like a deal with Google intelligence to share more private/personal data about Google's wordwide users (including US users) with Cuba's government.
"Allowing faster access to the companies data"
Let's not forget what kind of data Google has on us, I mean..... things like our full browsing history..... very interesting to some governments of the world, not just our own government, I'm sure.
Business necessity isn't mer inconvenience or mere benefit ---- nothing like "We wanted to save a little bit of money, and we needed to do X to reduce the cost, then found these groups of potential job seekers were the only ones we could exploit via a complex racket involving defrauding the US government", The defense to be successful would have to be something of material necessity such as "It's essential for us to apply certain objective security requirements to reject applicants who have a criminal record, even though prospects with a criminal record are disproportionately African-american, because the employees for this job title will be in a position handling money or working with confidential customer data, And the job cannot be done safely without employees for this position meeting this requirement"
I think they can argue it's not discrimination by listing legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons why they picked the Indians over Americans.
That doesn't necessarily work anymore, now that the courts have invented Disparate Impact Theory.
Even actions that could seem rational for non-discriminatory reasons and seem neutral on their face could still result in being sued over discrimination Via disparate impact.
Why don't they extend and upgrade the high-speed fibre links back to the US mainland that exist in Guantanamo bay, Cuba ?
It most certainly is illegal in situations where one person is in a position of authority over another.
In the US it's generally a Civil matter for most states, unless the driver has attempted rape, bodily harm, or committed an assault or battery, police have no involvement with no criminal violations committed.
The driver could very well have still 'hit on them' or told them 'Agree to Sex or get out of my car', and there will be nothing the police could do, although there might be action for a claim in civil court.
It will translate to lower consumer prices over time Versus hiring human workers for the roles.
It's a shift that is being accelerated by economic incentives in the form of higher minimum wages for human workers. The minimum wages being forced higher for human workers make it necessary to either automate or raise prices for these companies to survive, But consumers don't want to pay the higher prices, so they'd lose business and maybe become non-profitable ---- the automation will allow fast food to continue to be a business that exists, maybe.
This assumes Obama doesn't sign the TPP before the end of December.
He could sign the agreement, and convene the senate, or failing that, the agreement will automatically go into affect,
then Trump won't be able to kill it.....
Of course, women that let a man buy them dinner and a few drinks because they wants a free dinner and some drinks and have every intention of telling him to fuck off are nothing to admire either.
Both are Abusive/Disrespectful concepts for someone to go out and have the idea of doing, and BarbaraHudson's rant about this supposedly being the case is Off-topic and Sexist, for some reason, calling out men alone on supposedly thinking "supper and a few drinks entitles them to sex".
You don't go into a respectable bar to buy a drink and expect the bartender will attempt to make a sexual pass at you, Or make a pass at the bartender and start up sexual relations in this public setting.
They would get fired for that shit, Or management would get the bouncer to come kick you out of the bar and re-arrange your face/otherwise mess you up so bad as to make sure ya didn't even think of trying to come back, one or the other.
Businesses have reputations and images to maintain, and cannot accept having that tainted by inappropriate behavior for transaction of the company's intended product.
Next thing you know you will have discounted rides and "Sex" expected as part of the payment for the transaction
It may be a completely natural extension to the platform, but I could see why Uber might have obvious objections, As
this potentially eliminates their business model ---- it is a potential compromise on the professionalism, And this is fodder for competitors to get more regulations passed to protect consumers from Uber drivers.
Correct..... the moment the company begins to directly spell out details of worker mannerisms and conduct about the way people actually behave or present themselves while working, rather than the way the job is to be completed,
they begin to get in trouble as no longer contracting these people, but are just an employee trying to evade regulations and taxes, they are employing them, since they specify not only work to be accomplished but required worker conditions as well.
Also, so I understand the implications of this... what is this radiation measured in equivalent bananas?
A fraction of a bannana crumb so small that a human would not be able to see it with the naked eye.
In fact, so small, that maybe the radiation they've detected was a coincidence due to some meteorite and actually has nothing to do with Fukushima.
No-one should still have a Note 7 in their pocket -- to do so is negligence on the consumer's part.
Maybe..... out of 2.5 million units manufactured, about 35 have had major problems.
What do you suppose the chances are that there are customers who just don't know?
What about people who already had them replaced and got their replacements in October, and then there were reports the replacements were unsafe.
That's kind of ridiculous when you think about it. At some point, there are going to be people who are reasonably fed-up with Samsung on this,
and rationally chose to keep their first run replacement Notes, as Samsung has yet to deliver a fixed one......
Indeed; Most fires are started by space heaters, followed by ones that start in the kitchen, I believe the next most common place is the garage, followed by faulty electrical wiring (Common in rental units with cheap landlords). You should be scared.....
You had the choice to accept that risk when you chose what city to live in and what kind of people to surround yourself, or whether to buy your own lot on a farm out in the sticks a mile from your nearest neighbor.
Then you must comply with whatever rules your landlord sets down.
You have the right to NOT follow them and accept the consequences, however.
Also, I've never heard of a Landlord inspecting tenants cellphones or personal effects to look for hazardous items.
Ultimately it's your responsibility what you do with your property, that's the point though --- the phone is YOUR property,
Not Samsung's.
If your Landlord finds out you're using one and decides to evict you, that's their choice then, and they can do that ---
they just can't physically stop you from using Your Samsung which you own as a mobile phone, without going to jail for assault, I mean.
What if you live in an apartment or townhouse? Would you want your neighbors making that choice for you as well?
Your neighbors don't have that decision. They had the decision not to move into the same Townhouse or Apartment as you, though,
Or the landlord had the decision to not allow you to move in though.
If anything happens, You are liable to your neighbors for their damages AND the Manufacturer is liable to you.
It's not infallible. It's just that Manufacturers are still liable for product defects, AND releasing an update does not relieve them from this liability, unless you are provided reasonable advance notice (90 Days before the problem) to apply the update first.